netdev - Re: [PATCH] driver: usb: nullify dangling pointer in cdc_ncm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:47:40 +0200
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>
Cc:     Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>,
        Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>,
        syzbot+eabbf2aaa999cc507108@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver: usb: nullify dangling pointer in cdc_ncm_free



On 14.04.22 17:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> Good question. Isn't it the commit 2c9d6c2b871d ("usbnet: run unbind()
> before unregister_netdev()") which changed the ordering of the
> interface shutdown and basically makes this race happen? I don't see
> how we can guarantee that IOCTL won't be called until we quiescence
> the network device — my understanding that on device surprise removal
True. The best we could do is introduce a mutex for ioctl() and
disconnect(). That seems the least preferable solution to me.
> we have to first shutdown what it created and then unbind the device.
> If I understand the original issue correctly then the problem is in
> usbnet->unbind and it should actually be split to two hooks, otherwise
> it seems every possible IOCTL callback must have some kind of
> reference counting and keep an eye on the surprise removal.
>
> Johan, can you correct me if my understanding is wrong?
>
It seems to me that fundamentally the order of actions to handle
a hotunplug must mirror the order in a hotplug. We can add more hooks
if that turns out to be necessary for some drivers, but the basic
reverse mirrored order must be supported and I very much favor
restoring it as default.

So I am afraid I have to ask again, whether anybody sees a fundamental
issue with the attached patch, as opposed to it not being an elegant
solution?
It looks to me that we are in a fundamental disagreement on the correct
order in this question and there is no productive way forward other than
offering both ways.

    Regards
        Oliver

View attachment "0001-usbnet-split-unbind-callback.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (4357 bytes)