linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 1/1] test_firmware: fix some memory leaks and racing conditions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8f6e7b28-e59d-96dd-1c46-bde3e3e56b54@alu.unizg.hr>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:14:22 +0200
From:   Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 1/1] test_firmware: fix some memory leaks and
 racing conditions

On 7/27/23 17:36, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>> On 25.4.2023. 20:27, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:52:06PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>> Some functions were called both from locked and unlocked context, so
>>>> the lock was dropped prematurely, introducing a race condition when
>>>> deadlock was avoided.
>>>>
>>>> Having two locks wouldn't assure a race-proof mutual exclusion.
>>>>
>>>> __test_dev_config_update_bool(), __test_dev_config_update_u8() and
>>>> __test_dev_config_update_size_t() unlocked versions of the functions
>>>> were introduced to be called from the locked contexts as a workaround
>>>> without releasing the main driver's lock and causing a race condition.
>>>>
>>>> This should guarantee mutual exclusion and prevent any race conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Locked versions simply allow for mutual exclusion and call the unlocked
>>>> counterparts, to avoid duplication of code.
>>>>
>>>> trigger_batched_requests_store() and trigger_batched_requests_async_store()
>>>> now return -EBUSY if called with test_fw_config->reqs already allocated,
>>>> so the memory leak is prevented.
>>>>
>>>> The same functions now keep track of the allocated buf for firmware in
>>>> req->fw_buf as release_firmware() will not deallocate this storage for us.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, in __test_release_all_firmware(), req->fw_buf is released
>>>> before calling release_firmware(req->fw),
>>>> foreach test_fw_config->reqs[i], i = 0 .. test_fw_config->num_requests-1
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>>>> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>>>> Cc: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>>>> Cc: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
>>>> Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
>>>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>> Cc: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
>>>> Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>>>> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
>>>
>>> Mirad, thanks for this work, good stuff! So the patch just needs to be
>>> adjust with:
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7feebfa487b92 ("test_firmware: add support for request_firmware_into_buf"
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v5.4
>>>
>>> Then, can you split the patch in two, one which fixes the memory leaks
>>> and another that deals with the mutexes. The second patch might be a fix
>>> for the original code but I can't tell until I see the changes split out.
>>>
>>> The commit log should account for the memory leak and be clear how it
>>> happens. The other commit log for the second patch should clarify what
>>> it fixes and why as well.
>>
>> It seems to me that there is something wrong with the patchwork, as this commit
>> had not yet appeared in 5.4 LTS stable tree?
> 
> Did you resend a new v5 with the requested changes?

Actually, I am not sure what is the procedure, for it is accepted and visible in 5.10+ trees?

Mirsad