linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] gpio: virtuser: fix missing lookup table cleanups

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: <CAMRc=MejjiFin4hU_-8Cnzs03gDsd18cM6ahoSsZVQDeFSZd6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:15:17 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] gpio: virtuser: fix missing lookup table cleanups

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:04 AM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> When a virtuser device is created via configfs and the probe fails due
> to an incorrect lookup table, the table is not removed. This prevents
> subsequent probe attempts from succeeding, even if the issue is
> corrected, unless the device is released. Additionally, cleanup is also
> needed in the less likely case of platform_device_register_full()
> failure.
>
> Ensure the lookup table is removed whenever the device activation fails.
>
> Fixes: 91581c4b3f29 ("gpio: virtuser: new virtual testing driver for the GPIO API")
> Signed-off-by: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-virtuser.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-virtuser.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-virtuser.c
> index 91b6352c957c..ec5abfebca3d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-virtuser.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-virtuser.c
> @@ -1487,10 +1487,8 @@ gpio_virtuser_device_activate(struct gpio_virtuser_device *dev)
>         pdevinfo.fwnode = swnode;
>
>         ret = gpio_virtuser_make_lookup_table(dev);
> -       if (ret) {
> -               fwnode_remove_software_node(swnode);
> -               return ret;
> -       }
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto err_remove_swnode;
>
>         reinit_completion(&dev->probe_completion);
>         dev->driver_bound = false;
> @@ -1498,23 +1496,32 @@ gpio_virtuser_device_activate(struct gpio_virtuser_device *dev)
>
>         pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
>         if (IS_ERR(pdev)) {
> +               ret = PTR_ERR(pdev);
>                 bus_unregister_notifier(&platform_bus_type, &dev->bus_notifier);
> -               fwnode_remove_software_node(swnode);
> -               return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> +               goto err_remove_lookup_table;
>         }
>
>         wait_for_completion(&dev->probe_completion);
>         bus_unregister_notifier(&platform_bus_type, &dev->bus_notifier);
>
>         if (!dev->driver_bound) {
> -               platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> -               fwnode_remove_software_node(swnode);
> -               return -ENXIO;
> +               ret = -ENXIO;
> +               goto err_unregister_pdev;
>         }
>
>         dev->pdev = pdev;
>
>         return 0;
> +
> +err_unregister_pdev:
> +       platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> +err_remove_lookup_table:
> +       gpiod_remove_lookup_table(dev->lookup_table);
> +       kfree(dev->lookup_table);

Just one more thing: now we open-code this but the actual allocation
and adding of the table happens in a dedicated function. Can you
package these calls into their own function
(gpio_virtuser_remove_lookup_table() maybe?) and use it here and in
gpio_virtuser_device_deactivate()?

Bart

> +err_remove_swnode:
> +       fwnode_remove_software_node(swnode);
> +
> +       return ret;
>  }
>
>  static void
> --
> 2.43.0
>