[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<TYBPR01MB5341D3791E728E3D9EFC25D4D8D3A@TYBPR01MB5341.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 08:39:41 +0000
From: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
To: "REE dirk.behme@...bosch.com" <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>
CC: "s.shtylyov@....ru" <s.shtylyov@....ru>, "lee@...nel.org"
<lee@...nel.org>, "linyunsheng@...wei.com" <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
<edumazet@...gle.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
"p.zabel@...gutronix.de" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "geert+renesas@...der.be"
<geert+renesas@...der.be>, "magnus.damm@...il.com" <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, "wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com"
<wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "hackerzheng666@...il.com"
<hackerzheng666@...il.com>, "1395428693sheep@...il.com"
<1395428693sheep@...il.com>, "alex000young@...il.com"
<alex000young@...il.com>, Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@....com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, "REE dirk.behme@...bosch.com" <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] net: ravb: Fix possible UAF bug in ravb_remove
Hello Behme,
> From: Behme Dirk (CM/ESO2), Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:59 PM
>
> On 26.07.2023 05:19, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> ...
> > The fact that ravb_tx_timeout_work doesn't take any locks seems much
> > more suspicious.
> Does anybody plan to look into this, too?
I believe my fixed patch [1] resolved this issue too. Let me explain it in detail below.
In the thread, Jakub also mentioned [2] like below:
---
Simplest fix I can think of is to take a reference on the netdev before
scheduling the work, and then check if it's still registered in the work
itself. Wrap the timeout work in rtnl_lock() to avoid any races there.
---
Sergey suggested to add cancel_work_sync() into the ravb_close () [3].
And I investigated calltrace, and then the ravb_close() is under rtnl_lock() [4]
like below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ravb_remove() calls unregister_netdev().
-> unregister_netdev() calls rtnl_lock() and unregister_netdevice().
--> unregiter_netdevice_queue()
---> unregiter_netdevice_many()
----> unregiter_netdevice_many_notify().
-----> dev_close_many()
------> __dev_close_many()
-------> ops->ndo_stop()
ravb_close() calls phy_stop()
-> phy_state_machine() with PHY_HALTED
--> phy_link_down()
---> phy_link_change()
----> netif_carrier_off()
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, during cancel_work_sync() is waiting for canceling the workqueue in ravb_close(),
it's under rtnl_lock() so that no additional locks are needed in ravb_tx_timeout_work().
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=3971442870713de527684398416970cf025b4f89
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230727164820.48c9e685@kernel.org/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/607f4fe4-5a59-39dd-71c2-0cf769b48187@omp.ru/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/OSYPR01MB53341CFDBB49A3BA41A6752CD8F9A@OSYPR01MB5334.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com/
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda
> Best regards
>
> Dirk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists