linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] module: don't ignore sysfs_create

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: <2024032349-corporate-detached-0dc9@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:50:40 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] module: don't ignore sysfs_create_link() failures

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:39:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> The sysfs_create_link() return code is marked as __must_check, but the
> module_add_driver() function tries hard to not care, by assigning the
> return code to a variable. When building with 'make W=1', gcc still
> warns because this variable is only assigned but not used:
> 
> drivers/base/module.c: In function 'module_add_driver':
> drivers/base/module.c:36:6: warning: variable 'no_warn' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> 
> Rework the code to properly unwind and return the error code to the
> caller. My reading of the original code was that it tries to
> not fail when the links already exist, so keep ignoring -EEXIST
> errors.
> 
> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-modules@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
> Fixes: e17e0f51aeea ("Driver core: show drivers in /sys/module/")
> See-also: 4a7fb6363f2d ("add __must_check to device management code")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> v2: rework to actually handle the error. I have not tested the
>     error handling beyond build testing, so please review carefully.
> ---
>  drivers/base/base.h   |  2 +-
>  drivers/base/bus.c    |  7 ++++++-
>  drivers/base/module.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/base.h b/drivers/base/base.h
> index 0738ccad08b2..0e04bfe02943 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/base.h
> +++ b/drivers/base/base.h
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ extern struct kset *devices_kset;
>  void devices_kset_move_last(struct device *dev);
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_MODULES) && defined(CONFIG_SYSFS)
> -void module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv);
> +int module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv);
>  void module_remove_driver(struct device_driver *drv);
>  #else
>  static inline void module_add_driver(struct module *mod,
> diff --git a/drivers/base/bus.c b/drivers/base/bus.c
> index daee55c9b2d9..7ef75b60d331 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/bus.c
> @@ -674,7 +674,12 @@ int bus_add_driver(struct device_driver *drv)
>  		if (error)
>  			goto out_del_list;
>  	}
> -	module_add_driver(drv->owner, drv);
> +	error = module_add_driver(drv->owner, drv);
> +	if (error) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: failed to create module links for %s\n",
> +			__func__, drv->name);
> +		goto out_del_list;

Don't we need to walk back the driver_attach() call here if this fails?

> +	}
>  
>  	error = driver_create_file(drv, &driver_attr_uevent);
>  	if (error) {
> diff --git a/drivers/base/module.c b/drivers/base/module.c
> index 46ad4d636731..61282eaed670 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/module.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/module.c
> @@ -30,14 +30,14 @@ static void module_create_drivers_dir(struct module_kobject *mk)
>  	mutex_unlock(&drivers_dir_mutex);
>  }
>  
> -void module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv)
> +int module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv)
>  {
>  	char *driver_name;
> -	int no_warn;
> +	int ret;
>  	struct module_kobject *mk = NULL;
>  
>  	if (!drv)
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
>  
>  	if (mod)
>  		mk = &mod->mkobj;
> @@ -56,17 +56,37 @@ void module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!mk)
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	ret = sysfs_create_link(&drv->p->kobj, &mk->kobj, "module");
> +	if (ret && ret != -EEXIST)

Why would EEXIST happen here?  How can this be called twice?

> +		return ret;
>  
> -	/* Don't check return codes; these calls are idempotent */
> -	no_warn = sysfs_create_link(&drv->p->kobj, &mk->kobj, "module");
>  	driver_name = make_driver_name(drv);
> -	if (driver_name) {
> -		module_create_drivers_dir(mk);
> -		no_warn = sysfs_create_link(mk->drivers_dir, &drv->p->kobj,
> -					    driver_name);
> -		kfree(driver_name);
> +	if (!driver_name) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	module_create_drivers_dir(mk);
> +	if (!mk->drivers_dir) {
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
>  	}
> +
> +	ret = sysfs_create_link(mk->drivers_dir, &drv->p->kobj, driver_name);
> +	if (ret && ret != -EEXIST)
> +		goto out;

Same EEXIST question here.

thanks,

greg k-h