linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xhci: fix null pointer deref for xhci_urb

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <a970f296-da67-9a80-ab2f-a94fd16e0fd9@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 17:33:23 +0200
From:   Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Kuen-Han Tsai <khtsai@...gle.com>
Cc:     mathias.nyman@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xhci: fix null pointer deref for xhci_urb_enqueue

On 18.11.2023 12.19, Kuen-Han Tsai wrote:
> Hi Mathias
> 
>>>        if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&urb->ep->desc))
>>> @@ -1552,8 +1561,10 @@ static int xhci_urb_enqueue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, gfp_t mem_flag
>>>                num_tds = 1;
>>>
>>>        urb_priv = kzalloc(struct_size(urb_priv, td, num_tds), mem_flags);
>> kzalloc with spinlock held, should preferably be moved outside lock, otherwise should use GFP_ATOMIC
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. I realize this patch is incorrect and it
> is non-ideal to include many codes unrelated to xhci->devs[slot_id]
> within the lock.
> 
>> xhci_check_maxpacket() called here can't be called with spinlock held
> 
> It appears that xhci_check_maxpacket() might potentially lead to a
> deadlock later if a spinlock is held. Is this the concern you were
> referring to? If not, please let me know if there are any other
> potential issues that I may have missed, thanks!

xhci_check_maxpacket() will allocate memory, wait for completion, and use the same lock,
so there are several issues here.

I actually think we shouldn't call xhci_check_maxpacket() at all while queuing urbs.

usb core knows when there was max packet size mismatch during enumeration.
I think we should add a hook to the hcd that usb core can call in these cases

Thanks
Mathias