Re: [PATCH] goku_udc: Add check for NULL in goku_irq
From: Anastasia Belova
Date: Wed Mar 15 2023 - 10:26:33 EST
13.03.2023 16:49, Mirsad Goran Todorovac пишет:
On 13.3.2023. 13:19, Anastasia Belova wrote:
11.03.2023 06:29, Mirsad Goran Todorovac пишет:
On 15. 02. 2023. 14:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Анастасия Белова wrote:
03.02.2023 13:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 01:18:28PM +0300, Anastasia Belova wrote:
Before dereferencing dev->driver check it for NULL.
If an interrupt handler is called after assigning
NULL to dev->driver, but before resetting dev->int_enable,
NULL-pointer will be dereferenced.
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Anastasia Belova <abelova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c
b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c
index bdc56b24b5c9..896bba8b47f1 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c
@@ -1616,8 +1616,9 @@ static irqreturn_t goku_irq(int irq, void
*_dev)
pm_next:
if (stat & INT_USBRESET) { /* hub reset done */
ACK(INT_USBRESET);
- INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
- dev->driver->driver.name);
+ if (dev->driver)
+ INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
+ dev->driver->driver.name);
How can this ever happen? Can you trigger this somehow? If not, I
don't think this is going to be possible (also what's up with printk
from an irq handler???)
Unfortunately, I can't find the way to trigger this at the moment.
Then the change should not be made.
What about printk, should trace_printk be used instead?
Why?
Odds are, no one actually has this hardware anymore, right?
Despite of this, such vulnerability should be fixed because
there is a possibility to exploit it.
How can this be "exploited" if it can not ever be triggered?
Also, this would cause a NULL dereference in an irq handler, how
can you
"exploit" that?
Please only submit patches that actually do something. It is getting
very hard to want to even review patches from this "project" based on
the recent submissions.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg, Anastasia,
Hi Misrad,
Without any pros or cons, or taking sides, there appears to be a
similar check
when using dev->driver->driver.name in
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c#L1158
seq_printf(m,
"%s - %s\n"
"%s version: %s %s\n"
"Gadget driver: %s\n"
"Host %s, %s\n"
"\n",
pci_name(dev->pdev), driver_desc,
driver_name, DRIVER_VERSION, dmastr(),
dev->driver ? dev->driver->driver.name : "(none)",
is_usb_connected
? ((tmp & PW_PULLUP) ? "full speed" : "powered")
: "disconnected",
udc_ep_state(dev->ep0state));
On the other hand, where could dev->drivre be reset without
resetting dev->int_enable?
dev->driver = NULL appears here:
static int goku_udc_stop(struct usb_gadget *g)
{
struct goku_udc *dev = to_goku_udc(g);
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->lock, flags);
dev->driver = NULL;
stop_activity(dev);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->lock, flags);
return 0;
}
it is followed by stop_activity() calling udc_reset():
static void udc_reset(struct goku_udc *dev)
{
struct goku_udc_regs __iomem *regs = dev->regs;
writel(0, ®s->power_detect);
writel(0, ®s->int_enable);
readl(®s->int_enable);
dev->int_enable = 0;
.
.
.
... but this happens in between spin_lock_irqsave() and
spin_unlock_irqsave(),
which appears like a correct way to do it.
Are you sure that spin_lock_irqsave makes the code safe? This
function disables interrupts on
local processor only (Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition). So it
doesn't seem to be
absolutely safe on multiprocessor systems.
Hi, Anastasia,
Looking from the Second Edition or the book and the source, I see that
spin_lock_irqsave() expands to:
static inline unsigned long __raw_spin_lock_irqsave(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
preempt_disable();
spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, do_raw_spin_trylock, do_raw_spin_lock);
return flags;
}
if the multiple threads on multiple cores/SMTs contend for the same lock,
that with preempt_disable() should assure mutual exclusion.
Can you please quote from the Third Edition of Linux Device Drivers where
it says otherwise?
Hi, Mirsad,
If I get it right, preempt_disable blocks interrupts on all processors,
correct? This statement seems to make the code safe, but there is a quote
from Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition, CHAPTER 5, Concurrency and Race
Conditions: "...spin_lock_irqsave disables interrupts (on the local
processor
only) before taking the spinlock...". These thoughts contradict, don't they?
BTW, please also consider reading this article:
https://docs.kernel.org/driver-api/io_ordering.html
I saw they were using this readl() after writel() for synchronisation, so
please see if this clears your doubts. It says "readl() should flush
any pending
writes".
But I certainly see no harm in your proposal of guarding against NULL
pointer
dereference of dev->driver, both in
> - INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
> - dev->driver->driver.name);
> + if (dev->driver)
> + INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
> + dev->driver->driver.name);
or use the construct as the one in another line of the driver:
> - INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
> - dev->driver->driver.name);
> + INFO(dev, "USB reset done, gadget %s\n",
> + dev->driver ? dev->driver->driver.name : "(none)");
(This would IMHO enable detecting and logging when dev->driver
unexpectedly becomes NULL
in a race condition, rather that just silently skipping and ignoring
the situation.)
Agree, the second construct looks better.
but additionally also in:
> - spin_unlock (&dev->lock);
> - tmp = dev->driver->setup(&dev->gadget, &ctrl);
> - spin_lock (&dev->lock);
> + if (dev->driver && dev->driver->setup) {
> + spin_unlock (&dev->lock);
> + tmp = dev->driver->setup(&dev->gadget, &ctrl);
> + spin_lock (&dev->lock);
> + }
for completeness and robustness sake.
The author agrees that the race conditions in the device drivers are
very hard
to reproduce:
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/linux-device-drivers/0596000081/ch09s08.html
But I am really not able to analyse all possible scenarios ATM.
Maybe some ideas come after getting some oxygen.
(This is not an authoritative answer on the matter, just an attempt on
analysis.)
Regards,
Mirsad
Regards,
Anastasia
But second appearance is here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c#L1559
spin_lock(&dev->lock);
rescan:
stat = readl(®s->int_status) & dev->int_enable;
if (!stat)
goto done;
dev->irqs++;
/* device-wide irqs */
if (unlikely(stat & INT_DEVWIDE)) {
if (stat & INT_SYSERROR) {
ERROR(dev, "system error\n");
stop_activity(dev);
stat = 0;
handled = 1;
// FIXME have a neater way to prevent re-enumeration
dev->driver = NULL;
goto done;
}
goto done leads to:
done:
(void)readl(®s->int_enable);
spin_unlock(&dev->lock);
This unlocks dev->lock before setting dev->int_enable to zero, or
calling writel(0, ®s->int_enable);
which could be problematic. Unless it called stop_activity(dev) four
lines earlier. Which does
bot of:
writel(0, ®s->int_enable);
dev->int_enable = 0;
So, FWIW, we seem to be safe. Yet, there might be no harm in
printing "(null)" rather
than having an NULL pointer dereference, it seems.
Yet, there is another unprotected dereference of dev->driver:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/goku_udc.c#L1513
spin_unlock (&dev->lock);
tmp = dev->driver->setup(&dev->gadget, &ctrl);
spin_lock (&dev->lock);
All others (in goku_udc.c, at least) have triple safeguards like:
if (dev->gadget.speed != USB_SPEED_UNKNOWN
&& dev->driver
&& dev->driver->suspend) {
spin_unlock(&dev->lock);
dev->driver->suspend(&dev->gadget);
spin_lock(&dev->lock);
}
So the above should maybe put to:
if (dev->driver && dev->driver->setup) {
spin_unlock (&dev->lock);
tmp = dev->driver->setup(&dev->gadget, &ctrl);
spin_lock (&dev->lock);
}
instead to be completely certain.
Forgive me for this uninspired rant. Thank you if you've read this far.
I hope this helps.
My $0.02.
Regards,
Mirsad
Thanks,
Anastasia