[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200129033257.GC1754@kadam>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:32:57 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: abort and release host after error
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 02:14:57PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> With commit 216b44000ada ("brcmfmac: Fix use after free in
> brcmf_sdio_readframes()") applied, we see locking timeouts in
> brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread().
>
> brcmfmac: brcmf_escan_timeout: timer expired
> INFO: task brcmf_wdog/mmc1:621 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> Not tainted 4.19.94-07984-g24ff99a0f713 #1
> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> brcmf_wdog/mmc1 D 0 621 2 0x00000000 last_sleep: 2440793077. last_runnable: 2440766827
> [<c0aa1e60>] (__schedule) from [<c0aa2100>] (schedule+0x98/0xc4)
> [<c0aa2100>] (schedule) from [<c0853830>] (__mmc_claim_host+0x154/0x274)
> [<c0853830>] (__mmc_claim_host) from [<bf10c5b8>] (brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread+0x1b0/0x1f8 [brcmfmac])
> [<bf10c5b8>] (brcmf_sdio_watchdog_thread [brcmfmac]) from [<c02570b8>] (kthread+0x178/0x180)
>
> In addition to restarting or exiting the loop, it is also necessary to
> abort the command and to release the host.
>
> Fixes: 216b44000ada ("brcmfmac: Fix use after free in brcmf_sdio_readframes()")
Huh... Thanks for fixing the bug. That seems to indicate that we were
triggering the use after free but no one noticed at runtime. With
kfree(), a use after free can be harmless if you don't have poisoning
enabled and no other thread has re-used the memory. I'm not sure about
kfree_skb() but presumably it's the same.
Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists