linux-kernel - Re: [External] [PATCH] riscv: Prevent a bad reference count on CPU nodes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAEEQ3w=H7X0yeNg_qwbf0MxTO8gmXRaD0wJFv=xCKjqH-WNA_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:19:35 +0800
From: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
To: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mikisabate@...il.com>
Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, 
	sudeep.holla@....com, jeremy.linton@....com, sunilvl@...tanamicro.com, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH] riscv: Prevent a bad reference count on CPU nodes

Hi Miquel,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 4:02 PM Miquel Sabaté Solà <mikisabate@...il.com> wrote:
>
> When populating cache leaves we previously fetched the CPU device node
> at the very beginning. But when ACPI is enabled we go through a
> specific branch which returns early and does not call 'of_node_put' for
> the node that was acquired.
>
> Since we are not using a CPU device node for the ACPI code anyways, we
> can simply move the initialization of it just passed the ACPI block, and
> we are guaranteed to have an 'of_node_put' call for the acquired node.
> This prevents a bad reference count of the CPU device node.
>
> Moreover, the previous function did not check for errors when acquiring
> the device node, so a return -ENOENT has been added for that case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miquel Sabaté Solà <mikisabate@...il.com>
> ---
> I was wondering if this should also be sent to stable, but  I have not seen
> a report on it, and this is not responsible for an oops or anything like that.
> So in the end I decided not to, but maybe you consider otherwise.
>
>  arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index d6c108c50cba..d32dfdba083e 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -75,8 +75,7 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>         struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>         struct cacheinfo *this_leaf = this_cpu_ci->info_list;
> -       struct device_node *np = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu);
> -       struct device_node *prev = NULL;
> +       struct device_node *np, *prev;
>         int levels = 1, level = 1;
>
>         if (!acpi_disabled) {
> @@ -100,6 +99,10 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>                 return 0;
>         }
>
> +       np = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu);
> +       if (!np)
> +               return -ENOENT;
> +

It is necessary because the caller of populate_cache_leaves has a
return value judgment.
So,  Reviewed-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>

>         if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size"))
>                 ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level);
>         if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size"))
> --
> 2.46.0
>

Thanks,
Yunhui