linux-kernel - [PATCH] pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250620164324.3616153-1-mukesh.ojha@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 22:13:24 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
To: linus.walleij@...aro.org
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux_usecount

Commit  ("pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data")
tried to address the issue when two client of the same gpio calls
pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, was resulting in
NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. However, issue
was not completely fixed due to the way it was handled and it can
still result in the same NULL pointer.

The issue occurs due to the following interleaving:

     cpu0 (process A)                   cpu1 (process B)

      pin_request() {                   pin_free() {

                                         mutex_lock()
                                         desc->mux_usecount--; //becomes 0
                                         ..
                                         mutex_unlock()

  mutex_lock(desc->mux)
  desc->mux_usecount++; // becomes 1
  desc->mux_owner = owner;
  mutex_unlock(desc->mux)

                                         mutex_lock(desc->mux)
                                         desc->mux_owner = NULL;
                                         mutex_unlock(desc->mux)

This sequence leads to a state where the pin appears to be in use
(`mux_usecount == 1`) but has no owner (`mux_owner == NULL`), which can
cause NULL pointer on next pin_request on the same pin.

Ensure that updates to mux_usecount and mux_owner are performed
atomically under the same lock. Only clear mux_owner when mux_usecount
reaches zero and no new owner has been assigned.

Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
index 0743190da59e..1cea04d57ca2 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
@@ -235,19 +235,9 @@ static const char *pin_free(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, int pin,
 			desc->mux_usecount--;
 			if (desc->mux_usecount)
 				return NULL;
-		}
-	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If there is no kind of request function for the pin we just assume
-	 * we got it by default and proceed.
-	 */
-	if (gpio_range && ops->gpio_disable_free)
-		ops->gpio_disable_free(pctldev, gpio_range, pin);
-	else if (ops->free)
-		ops->free(pctldev, pin);
+		}
 
-	scoped_guard(mutex, &desc->mux_lock) {
 		if (gpio_range) {
 			owner = desc->gpio_owner;
 			desc->gpio_owner = NULL;
@@ -258,6 +248,15 @@ static const char *pin_free(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, int pin,
 		}
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If there is no kind of request function for the pin we just assume
+	 * we got it by default and proceed.
+	 */
+	if (gpio_range && ops->gpio_disable_free)
+		ops->gpio_disable_free(pctldev, gpio_range, pin);
+	else if (ops->free)
+		ops->free(pctldev, pin);
+
 	module_put(pctldev->owner);
 
 	return owner;
-- 
2.34.1