linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop()

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: <DAKFAHGCNE8N.G1RH5X4QD8MW@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:47:51 +0200
From: "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>
To: "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 <rafael@...nel.org>, <ojeda@...nel.org>, <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <gary@...yguo.net>, <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
 <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 <chrisi.schrefl@...il.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop()

On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 10:15 AM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:13 AM Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue Jun 3, 2025 at 10:48 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> > In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the
>> > wrapped device resource.
>> >
>> > The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when
>> > the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the
>> > corresponding device being bound to a driver.
>> >
>> > However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30
>> > ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been
>> > (partially) present from the initial version on.
>> >
>> > In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and
>> > subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs.
>> > However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device
>> > resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the
>> > corresponding device.
>> >
>> > If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that
>> > the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running
>> > concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking
>> > the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If
>> > Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of
>> > the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done
>> > unbinding the corresponding device.
>>
>> I don't understand the exact sequence of events here. Here is what I got
>> from your explanation:
>>
>> * the driver created a `Devres<T>` associated to their device.
>> * their physical device gets disconnected and thus the driver core
>>   starts unbinding the device.
>> * simultaneously, the driver drops the `Devres<T>` (eg because the
>>   driver initiated the physical removal)
>> * now `devres_callback` is being called from both `Devres::Drop` (which
>>   calls `Devres::remove_action`) and from the driver core.
>> * they both call `inner.data.revoke()`, but only one wins, in our
>>   example `Devres::drop`.
>> * but now the driver core has finished running `devres_callback` and
>>   finalizes unbinding the device, even though the `Devres` still exists
>>   though is almost done being dropped.
>>
>> I don't see a race here. Also the `dev: ARef<Device>` should keep the
>> device alive until the `Devres` is dropped, no?
>
> The race is that Devres is used when the contents *must* be dropped
> before the device is unbound. This example violates that by having
> device unbind finish before the contents are dropped.

If `Devres::drop` is being run, nobody has access to it any longer.
Additionally, the data in the revocable has already been dropped if
`revoke()` has been run, so it's fine?

---
Cheers,
Benno