[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab509035-cf3c-4902-87a8-cbba03ac948c@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:29:43 +0800
From: Yu Wang <quic_yyuwang@...cinc.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <rafael@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Devcoredump: fix use-after-free issue when releasing
devcd device
Thanks for your comments :)
On 10/27/2023 8:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 13:11 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> static void my_coredump()
>>> {
>>> struct my_coredump_state dump_state;
>>> struct device *new_device =
>>> kzalloc(sizeof(*new_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> ...
>>> new_device->release = my_dev_release;
>>> device_initialize(new_device);
>>> ...
>>> device_add(new_device);
>>> ...
>>> init_completion(&dump_state.dump_done);
>>> dev_coredumpm(new_device, NULL, &dump_state, datalen, GFP_KERNEL,
>>> my_coredump_read, my_coredump_free);
>>> wait_for_completion(&dump_state.dump_done);
>>> device_del(new_device);
>>> put_device(new_device);
>>> }
>>
>> Is there any in-kernel user like this? If so, why not fix them up to
>> not do this?
In this case, the device is temporarily added for dump only, so we need to
delete it when dump is completed.
The other users doesn't add/delete the device like this.
>>
>
> Maybe this is only a simplified scenario and whenever you remove a
> device when a coredump is still pending this can happen?
It removes the device when the @free function has been called, I think
the @free function should be considered as a completion signal, and so
we need to put @free at the end of falling-device-related-clean-up in
devcoredump framework (the change in the patch).
>
> Actually, no, wait, what is this doing??? Why is there a completion and
> all that stuff there? You shouldn't really care about the dump once you
> have created it, and not pass NULL for the struct module pointer
> either?!
Yes, I know we don't need to care about the dump data, but as mentioned
upon, the device is locally and temporarily created for this one-time dump
only, we need to free it when dump is completed, so introduce this completion.
Refer to drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_coredump.c.
Regarding NULL for the struct module pointer, looks it's allowed for this
API (<remoteproc_coredump.c> also pass NULL)? But yes, it's not nice indeed,
we need this to get a reference of the calling module for safety.
Will correct in the next patch set.
>
> johannes
Best Regards,
Yu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists