Re: [PATCH] fsi:fsi-sbefifo: Fix possible concurrency use-after-free bugs in sbefifo_user_release
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 03 2019 - 22:26:59 EST
On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 10:26 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> On 2019/1/4 8:47, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-12-26 at 21:56 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > > In drivers/fsi/fsi-sbefifo.c, the functions sbefifo_user_release(),
> > > sbefifo_user_read() and sbefifo_user_write() may be concurrently executed.
> > So after refreshing my mind, looking at the code and talking with Al, I
> > really dont' see what race you are trying to fix here.
> > read/write should never be concurrent with release for a given file and
> > the stuff we are protecting here is local to the file instance.
> > Do you have an actual problem you observed ?
> Thanks for the reply.
> In fact, this report is found by a static tool written by myself,
> instead of real execution.
> My tool found that in some drivers, for the structure "struct
> file_operations", the code in intetrfaces ".read" , "write" and
> ".release" are protected by the same lock.
> The functions kcs_bmc_read(), kcs_bmc_write() and kcs_bmc_release() are
> Thus, my tool inferred that the intetrfaces ".read" , "write" and
> ".release" of "struct file_operations" can be concurrently executed, and
> generated this report.
> I manually checked this report, but I was not very sure of it, so I
> marked it as a "possible bug" and reported it.
So what happens is that they cannot be executed concurrently for a
given struct file. But they can be for separate files.
In the fsi-sbefifo case, all of the data and the lock are part of a
private structure which is allocated in open() and thus is per-file
instance, so there should be no race.
In the example you gave, kcs_bmc.c, the data and lock are part of a
per-device (struct kcs_bmc) and thus shared by all file instances. So
in that case, the race does exist.
> From your message, now I know my report is false, and ".read" , "write"
> cannot be concurrently executed with ".release" for a given file.
> Sorry for my false report, and thanks for your message.
Right, your tool is valuable as pre-screening but you need in addition
to check (probably manually) whether the data accessed (and lock) are
shared by multiple open file instances or are entirely local to a given