[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <edfe34ca-06d4-46c8-81a2-f713ab74d769@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:36:51 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Pratyush Brahma <quic_pbrahma@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: quic_c_gdjako@...cinc.com, andersson@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, djakov@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
joro@...tes.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_cgoldswo@...cinc.com, quic_pdaly@...cinc.com,
quic_sudaraja@...cinc.com, quic_sukadev@...cinc.com, robdclark@...il.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Fix use-after-free issue in
qcom_smmu_create()
On 2024-02-13 8:17 am, Pratyush Brahma wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2024 1:36 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 08:27, Pratyush Brahma
>> <quic_pbrahma@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>> Currently, during arm smmu probe, struct arm_smmu_device pointer
>>> is allocated. The pointer is reallocated to a new struct qcom_smmu in
>>> qcom_smmu_create() with devm_krealloc() which frees the smmu device
>>> after copying the data into the new pointer.
>>>
>>> The freed pointer is then passed again in devm_of_platform_populate()
>>> inside qcom_smmu_create() which causes a use-after-free issue.
>>>
>>> Fix the use-after-free issue by reassigning the old pointer to
>>> the new pointer where the struct was copied by devm_krealloc().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pratyush Brahma <quic_pbrahma@...cinc.com>
>> Missing Fixes tag.
> Haven't added as the patchset in-reply-to hasn't been merged to
> linux-next. Please refer my next reply.
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>> index ed5ed5da7740..49eaeed6a91c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>>> @@ -710,6 +710,7 @@ static struct arm_smmu_device
>>> *qcom_smmu_create(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>> qsmmu = devm_krealloc(smmu->dev, smmu, sizeof(*qsmmu),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!qsmmu)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> + smmu = &qsmmu->smmu;
>>>
>>> qsmmu->smmu.impl = impl;
>>> qsmmu->data = data;
>>> @@ -719,7 +720,7 @@ static struct arm_smmu_device
>>> *qcom_smmu_create(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> What is the tree that you have been developing this against? I don't
>> see this part of the code in the linux-next.
> This is in reply to the patchset at:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240201210529.7728-4-quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com
> The aforementioned patchset introduces this bug. This is a suggested fix
> to the bug.
Unless you are the 0-day bot, please just point out bugs in under-review
patches via regular review comments rather than sending patches for
unmerged patches.
There is nothing to fix in mainline, and as I commented on the binding
patch I'm not sure I agree with the fundamental premise for touching
qcom_smmu_create() in this series at all.
Thanks,
Robin.
>>> - return &qsmmu->smmu;
>>> + return smmu;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* Implementation Defined Register Space 0 register offsets */
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
>>>
> Thanks,
> Pratyush
Powered by blists - more mailing lists