Re: debugfs vs. device removal

[Omar Sandoval]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:03:48PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > > In the block layer, we abuse sysfs to export some per-device debugging
> > > information. I was looking into moving this to debugfs, but I realized
> > > that debugfs doesn't have a mechanism to ensure that a file associated
> > > with a device is safe to use when the device is removed. 
> > 
> > What do you mean by "safe"?  The race conditions where you remove a file
> > and still have it open should all now be resolved in 4.8 and 4.9, di dwe
> > miss something?
> 
> This is something else -- Omar is right, hid-debugfs interface is buggy. 
> It basically doesn't synchronize the data dumping with device removal, so 
> if device is removed and deallocated and the race is hit, it tries to 
> dereference struct hid_device which has already been freed.

Yup, I'm talking about the case where I create a debugfs file and the
data pointer is, say, a struct request_queue. If userspace calls open()
on a debugfs file, then the device goes away, the struct request_queue
is going to get freed and read() will blow up.

If we're talking about objects with a struct kobject (like struct
request_queue), can we just grab an extra reference in open() and drop
it in release()? This allows userspace to keep stuff pinned
indefinitely, but debugfs is root-only and the use-case is usually just
`cat`.

> I'll look into fixing this later today or tomorrow. Basically we'd need to 
> synchronize between hid_remove_device() and anything in hid-debug and 
> whenever removal is pending, not to try to get any data out of it any more 
> and bail immediately. Something like rwlock (debugfs being the reader and 
> device removal being the writer) should work.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
>