| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANiDSCtAxfnKbfEBedaDMvMJX49axeENp=gYPF65pKtgt5_XcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:23:48 +0100
From: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] media: uvcvideo: Remove dangling pointers
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 10:35, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 07:46:11AM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > When an async control is written, we copy a pointer to the file handle
> > that started the operation. That pointer will be used when the device is
> > done. Which could be anytime in the future.
> >
> > If the user closes that file descriptor, its structure will be freed,
> > and there will be one dangling pointer per pending async control, that
> > the driver will try to use.
> >
> > Clean all the dangling pointers during release().
> >
> > To avoid adding a performance penalty in the most common case (no async
> > operation). A counter has been introduced with some logic to make sure
> > that it is properly handled.
> >
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Fixes: e5225c820c05 ("media: uvcvideo: Send a control event when a Control Change interrupt arrives")
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c | 2 ++
> > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> > index 5d3a28edf7f0..51a53ad25e9c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c
> > @@ -1589,7 +1589,12 @@ void uvc_ctrl_status_event(struct uvc_video_chain *chain,
> > mutex_lock(&chain->ctrl_mutex);
> >
> > handle = ctrl->handle;
> > - ctrl->handle = NULL;
> > + if (handle) {
> > + ctrl->handle = NULL;
> > + WARN_ON(!handle->pending_async_ctrls);
> > + if (handle->pending_async_ctrls)
> > + handle->pending_async_ctrls--;
> > + }
>
> There's at least one other location where ctrl->handle is reset to NULL.
That assignment is not needed. I added a patch to remove it in the next version.
>
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(mapping, &ctrl->info.mappings, list) {
> > s32 value = __uvc_ctrl_get_value(mapping, data);
> > @@ -2050,8 +2055,11 @@ int uvc_ctrl_set(struct uvc_fh *handle,
> > mapping->set(mapping, value,
> > uvc_ctrl_data(ctrl, UVC_CTRL_DATA_CURRENT));
> >
> > - if (ctrl->info.flags & UVC_CTRL_FLAG_ASYNCHRONOUS)
> > + if (ctrl->info.flags & UVC_CTRL_FLAG_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
> > + if (!ctrl->handle)
> > + handle->pending_async_ctrls++;
> > ctrl->handle = handle;
>
> Is this protected by ctrl_mutex ?
yes, uvc_ctrl_set is only called by uvc_ioctl_s_try_ext_ctrls that
calls uvc_ctrl_begin
I will send another patch to add an annotation to the function to make
it explicit.
>
> Please be careful about locking and race conditions, taking the time to
> double check will help getting your patches merged faster.
>
> > + }
> >
> > ctrl->dirty = 1;
> > ctrl->modified = 1;
> > @@ -2774,6 +2782,34 @@ int uvc_ctrl_init_device(struct uvc_device *dev)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +void uvc_ctrl_cleanup_fh(struct uvc_fh *handle)
> > +{
> > + struct uvc_entity *entity;
> > +
> > + guard(mutex)(&handle->chain->ctrl_mutex);
> > +
> > + if (!handle->pending_async_ctrls)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(entity, &handle->chain->dev->entities, list) {
> > + int i;
>
> unsigned int
>
> I wonder if these days you could event write
>
> for (unsigned int i = 0; i < entity->ncontrols; ++i) {
>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < entity->ncontrols; ++i) {
> > + struct uvc_control *ctrl = &entity->controls[i];
> > +
> > + if (!ctrl->handle || ctrl->handle != handle)
>
> Given that handle can't be null, you can write
>
> if (ctrl->handle != handle)
>
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + ctrl->handle = NULL;
> > + if (WARN_ON(!handle->pending_async_ctrls))
> > + continue;
>
> Is this needed ? If we find more controls for this handle than
> pending_async_ctrls, decrementing it below 0 will case the WARN_ON() at
> the end of this function to trigger, isn't that enough ?
I want to know if the warning is triggered because I have too many
pending_async_ctrls or too little.
>
> > + handle->pending_async_ctrls--;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(handle->pending_async_ctrls);
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Cleanup device controls.
> > */
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > index 97c5407f6603..b425306a3b8c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > @@ -652,6 +652,8 @@ static int uvc_v4l2_release(struct file *file)
> >
> > uvc_dbg(stream->dev, CALLS, "%s\n", __func__);
> >
> > + uvc_ctrl_cleanup_fh(handle);
> > +
> > /* Only free resources if this is a privileged handle. */
> > if (uvc_has_privileges(handle))
> > uvc_queue_release(&stream->queue);
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> > index 07f9921d83f2..2f8a9c48e32a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> > @@ -612,6 +612,7 @@ struct uvc_fh {
> > struct uvc_video_chain *chain;
> > struct uvc_streaming *stream;
> > enum uvc_handle_state state;
> > + unsigned int pending_async_ctrls; /* Protected by ctrl_mutex. */
>
> The kernel does it the other way around, it lists in the documentation
> of the lock what data it protects.
>
> > };
> >
> > struct uvc_driver {
> > @@ -797,6 +798,8 @@ int uvc_ctrl_is_accessible(struct uvc_video_chain *chain, u32 v4l2_id,
> > int uvc_xu_ctrl_query(struct uvc_video_chain *chain,
> > struct uvc_xu_control_query *xqry);
> >
> > +void uvc_ctrl_cleanup_fh(struct uvc_fh *handle);
> > +
> > /* Utility functions */
> > struct usb_host_endpoint *uvc_find_endpoint(struct usb_host_interface *alts,
> > u8 epaddr);
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
--
Ricardo Ribalda
Powered by blists - more mailing lists