[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Y=W2xazqDmrSFDS5ocbsc+H-ZAiHTD1era=dFR4V0gOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:36:57 -0700
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: bongsu.jeon@...sung.com, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: Allow to create multiple virtual nci devices
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 02:23, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 03:29:19PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > The current virtual nci driver is great for testing and fuzzing.
> > But it allows to create at most one "global" device which does not allow
> > to run parallel tests and harms fuzzing isolation and reproducibility.
> > Restructure the driver to allow creation of multiple independent devices.
> > This should be backwards compatible for existing tests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@...sung.com>
> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > ---
> > drivers/nfc/virtual_ncidev.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
>
> <...>
>
> > static int virtual_nci_send(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > {
> > - mutex_lock(&nci_mutex);
> > - if (state != virtual_ncidev_enabled) {
> > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex);
> > - kfree_skb(skb);
> > - return 0;
> > - }
> > + struct virtual_nci_dev *vdev = nci_get_drvdata(ndev);
> >
> > - if (send_buff) {
> > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex);
> > + mutex_lock(&vdev->mtx);
> > + if (vdev->send_buff) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx);
> > kfree_skb(skb);
>
> You probably need to set vdev->send_buff to NULL here.
Hi Leon,
Thanks for looking at this.
Are you sure about setting vdev->send_buff to NULL?
We already have a "cached" skb in vdev->send_buff, we received a new
one in 'skb' and freed it.
I assumed the intention is to keep vdev->send_buff intact.
> > return -1;
> > }
> > - send_buff = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex);
> > - wake_up_interruptible(&wq);
> > + vdev->send_buff = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> You don't check return value of skb_copy(), it can fail, but
> this function will return 0 (success). Do you do it deliberately?
>
> If yes, please add a comment to the code, as it is not clear.
Good question. I just kept all of this logic as it is now and only
removed the global vars.
I guess we need something like this, right?
vdev->send_buff = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!vdev->send_buff) {
mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx);
return -1;
}
Though, it's called only from nci_send_frame() and its return value is
never checked :)
$ git grep nci_send_frame
include/net/nfc/nci_core.h:int nci_send_frame(struct nci_dev *ndev,
struct sk_buff *skb);
net/nfc/nci/core.c:int nci_send_frame(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb)
net/nfc/nci/core.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(nci_send_frame);
drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/fw_dnld.c:
nci_send_frame(priv->ndev, out_skb);
drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/fw_dnld.c: nci_send_frame(priv->ndev, out_skb);
drivers/nfc/nfcmrvl/fw_dnld.c:
nci_send_frame(priv->ndev, out_skb);
net/nfc/nci/core.c: nci_send_frame(ndev, skb);
net/nfc/nci/core.c: nci_send_frame(ndev, skb);
> Thanks
>
> > + mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx);
> > + wake_up_interruptible(&vdev->wq);
> > consume_skb(skb);
> >
> > return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists