linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] thermal: core: Store zone ops in struct thermal_zone

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: <CAJZ5v0hju2ZQsqBYMcs+_TDB+7aH=_Lo7BwqJ=WX1VMkHK38jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 12:03:34 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, 
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, 
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>, 
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, 
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] thermal: core: Store zone ops in struct thermal_zone_device

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:58 AM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/02/2024 11:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14/02/2024 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >>>
> >>> The current code requires thermal zone creators to pass pointers to
> >>> writable ops structures to thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips()
> >>> which needs to modify the target struct thermal_zone_device_ops object
> >>> if the "critical" operation in it is NULL.
> >>>
> >>> Moreover, the callers of thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() are
> >>> required to hold on to the struct thermal_zone_device_ops object passed
> >>> to it until the given thermal zone is unregistered.
> >>>
> >>> Both of these requirements are quite inconvenient, so modify struct
> >>> thermal_zone_device to contain struct thermal_zone_device_ops as field and
> >>> make thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() copy the contents of the
> >>> struct thermal_zone_device_ops passed to it via a pointer (which can be
> >>> const now) to that field.
> >>>
> >>> Also adjust the code using thermal zone ops accordingly and modify
> >>> thermal_of_zone_register() to use a local ops variable during
> >>> thermal zone registration so ops do not need to be freed in
> >>> thermal_of_zone_unregister() any more.
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>    static void thermal_of_zone_unregister(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
> >>>    {
> >>>        struct thermal_trip *trips = tz->trips;
> >>> -     struct thermal_zone_device_ops *ops = tz->ops;
> >>>
> >>>        thermal_zone_device_disable(tz);
> >>>        thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
> >>>        kfree(trips);
> >>
> >> Not related to the current patch but with patch 1/6. Freeing the trip
> >> points here will lead to a double free given it is already freed from
> >> thermal_zone_device_unregister() after the changes introduces in patch
> >> 1, right ?
> >
> > No, patch [1/6] doesn't free the caller-supplied ops, just copies them
> > into the local instance.  Attempting to free a static ops would not be
> > a good idea, for example.
>
> I'm referring to the trip points not the ops.

Ah, sorry for the confusion.

> The patch 1 does:
>
> tz = kzalloc(struct_size(tz, trips, num_trips), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Then the last line of thermal_zone_device_unregister() does:
>
> kfree(tz);
>
> That includes the trip points in the flexible array.

Right.

> Now in thermal_of_zone_unregister(), we do:
>
> trips = tz->trips;

I missed this.

> thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
> kfree(trips);
>
> Hence double kfree, right?

Indeed, so patch [1/6] is missing a thermal_of change to stop freeing
trips separately.  Let me send an update of just that patch.