linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Fix potential race condition in its_vlpi_prop_update()

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <20240531140336.GA4911@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:03:36 +0000
From: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@...zon.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: Maximilian Heyne <mheyne@...zon.de>, Norbert Manthey <nmanthey@...zon.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<hagarhem@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Fix potential race condition in
 its_vlpi_prop_update()

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:30:59AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 10:53:18 +0100,
> Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@...zon.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:27:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Fri, 31 May 2024 08:43:02 +0100,
> > > Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@...zon.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > its_vlpi_prop_update() calls lpi_write_config() which obtains the
> > > > mapping information for a VLPI without lock held. So it could race
> > > > with its_vlpi_unmap().
> > > > Since all calls from its_irq_set_vcpu_affinity() require the same
> > > > lock to be held. So instead of peppering the locking all over the
> > > > place, we hoist the locking into its_irq_set_vcpu_affinity().
> > > > 
> > > > This bug was discovered and resolved using Coverity Static Analysis
> > > > Security Testing (SAST) by Synopsys, Inc.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 015ec0386ab6 ("irqchip/gic-v3-its: Add VLPI configuration handling")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@...zon.com>
> > > 
> > > Given that you have lifted both my proposed patch and part of my
> > > reply as a commit message, you may at least credit me with a
> > > Suggested-by: tag. Not to mention that the blatant advertising doesn't
> > > really apply in this case.
> > 
> > ok, I will add this tag in rev3 and we need to add that disclaimer
> > as it is a commercial tool. thanks!
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not bound by this requirement. I'm happy to credit
> *you* for reporting a defect, but certainly not a tool that hasn't
> "resolved" anything, despite what the message says.

Ok, I will drop the resolved part as the modified fix is suggested by
you. Is it ok?
> 
> 	M.
> 
> -- 
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

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