[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b886efd9-a611-4e0d-86dd-ae88ba53c3f6@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 10:19:22 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Chenyuan Yang <chenyuan0y@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, ribalda@...omium.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: acpi: Prevent null pointer dereference in
usb_acpi_add_usb4_devlink()
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 02:50:32PM -0500, Chenyuan Yang wrote:
> As demonstrated by the fix for update_port_device_state,
> commit 12783c0b9e2c ("usb: core: Prevent null pointer dereference in update_port_device_state"),
> usb_hub_to_struct_hub() can return NULL in certain scenarios,
> such as during hub driver unbind or teardown race conditions,
> even if the underlying usb_device structure exists.
Those are not the conditions addressed by that commit. The commit was
specifically meant to handle a bizarre situation created by the lvstest
driver (a child device added "by hand" after deconfiguring the parent
hub).
> Plus, all other places that call usb_hub_to_struct_hub() in the same file
> do check for NULL return values.
>
> If usb_hub_to_struct_hub() returns NULL, the subsequent access to
> hub->ports[udev->portnum - 1] will cause a null pointer dereference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chenyuan Yang <chenyuan0y@...il.com>
> Fixes: f1bfb4a6fed6 ("usb: acpi: add device link between tunneled USB3 device and USB4 Host Interface")
>
> ---
> drivers/usb/core/usb-acpi.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/usb-acpi.c b/drivers/usb/core/usb-acpi.c
> index 935c0efea0b6..ea1ce8beb0cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/usb-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/usb-acpi.c
> @@ -165,6 +165,8 @@ static int usb_acpi_add_usb4_devlink(struct usb_device *udev)
> return 0;
>
> hub = usb_hub_to_struct_hub(udev->parent);
> + if (!hub)
> + return 0;
> port_dev = hub->ports[udev->portnum - 1];
While this test may not be strictly necessary, it doesn't hurt since
this isn't a hot path.
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists