Re: [PATCH net v2] eth: fbnic: fix double-free of PCS on phylink creation failure
From: Paolo Abeni
Date: Thu May 07 2026 - 06:35:50 EST
On 5/5/26 3:42 AM, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxx>
>
> fbnic_phylink_create() stores the newly allocated PCS in fbn->pcs and
> then calls phylink_create(). When phylink_create() fails, the error path
> correctly destroys the PCS via xpcs_destroy_pcs(), but the caller,
> fbnic_netdev_alloc(), responds by invoking fbnic_netdev_free() which
> calls fbnic_phylink_destroy(). That function finds fbn->pcs non-NULL and
> calls xpcs_destroy_pcs() a second time on the already-freed object,
> triggering a refcount underflow use-after-free:
>
> [ 1.934973] fbnic 0000:01:00.0: Failed to create Phylink interface, err: -22
> [ 1.935103] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 1.935179] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
> [ 1.935252] WARNING: lib/refcount.c:28 at refcount_warn_saturate+0x59/0x90, CPU#0: swapper/0/1
> [ 1.935389] Modules linked in:
> [ 1.935484] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 7.0.0-virtme-04244-g1f5ffc672165-dirty #1 PREEMPT(lazy)
> [ 1.935661] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> [ 1.935826] RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x59/0x90
> [ 1.935931] Code: 44 48 8d 3d 49 f9 a7 01 67 48 0f b9 3a e9 bf 1e 96 00 48 8d 3d 48 f9 a7 01 67 48 0f b9 3a c3 cc cc cc cc 48 8d 3d 47 f9 a7 01 <67> 48 0f b9 3a c3 cc cc cc cc 48 8d 3d 46 f9 a7 01 67 48 0f b9 3a
> [ 1.936274] RSP: 0000:ffffd0d440013c58 EFLAGS: 00010246
> [ 1.936376] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8f39c188c278 RCX: 000000000000002b
> [ 1.936524] RDX: ffff8f39c004f000 RSI: 0000000000000003 RDI: ffffffff96abab00
> [ 1.936692] RBP: ffff8f39c188c240 R08: ffffffff96988e88 R09: 00000000ffffdfff
> [ 1.936835] R10: ffffffff96878ea0 R11: 0000000000000187 R12: 0000000000000000
> [ 1.936970] R13: ffff8f39c0cef0c8 R14: ffff8f39c1ac01c0 R15: 0000000000000000
> [ 1.937114] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8f3ba08b4000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 1.937273] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 1.937382] CR2: ffff8f3b3ffff000 CR3: 0000000172642001 CR4: 0000000000372ef0
> [ 1.937540] Call Trace:
> [ 1.937619] <TASK>
> [ 1.937698] xpcs_destroy_pcs+0x25/0x40
> [ 1.937783] fbnic_netdev_alloc+0x1e5/0x200
> [ 1.937859] fbnic_probe+0x230/0x370
> [ 1.937939] local_pci_probe+0x3e/0x90
> [ 1.938013] pci_device_probe+0xbb/0x1e0
> [ 1.938091] ? sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0x6d/0xe0
> [ 1.938188] really_probe+0xc1/0x2b0
> [ 1.938282] __driver_probe_device+0x73/0x120
> [ 1.938371] driver_probe_device+0x1e/0xe0
> [ 1.938466] __driver_attach+0x8d/0x190
> [ 1.938560] ? __pfx___driver_attach+0x10/0x10
> [ 1.938663] bus_for_each_dev+0x7b/0xd0
> [ 1.938758] bus_add_driver+0xe8/0x210
> [ 1.938854] driver_register+0x60/0x120
> [ 1.938929] ? __pfx_fbnic_init_module+0x10/0x10
> [ 1.939026] fbnic_init_module+0x25/0x60
> [ 1.939109] do_one_initcall+0x49/0x220
> [ 1.939202] ? rdinit_setup+0x20/0x40
> [ 1.939304] kernel_init_freeable+0x1b0/0x310
> [ 1.939449] ? __pfx_kernel_init+0x10/0x10
> [ 1.939560] kernel_init+0x1a/0x1c0
> [ 1.939640] ret_from_fork+0x1ed/0x240
> [ 1.939730] ? __pfx_kernel_init+0x10/0x10
> [ 1.939805] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [ 1.939886] </TASK>
> [ 1.939927] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> [ 1.940184] fbnic 0000:01:00.0: Netdev allocation failed
>
> Instead of calling fbnic_phylink_destroy(), the prior initialization of
> netdev should just be unrolled with free_netdev() and clearing
> fbd->netdev.
>
> Clearing fbd->netdev to NULL avoids UAF in init_failure_mode where
> callers guard by checking !fbd->netdev, such as fbnic_mdio_read_pmd().
> These callers remain active even after a failed probe, so fdb->netdev
> still needs to be cleared.
>
> Fixes: d0fe7104c795 ("fbnic: Replace use of internal PCS w/ Designware XPCS")
> Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxx>
Note that sashiko-gemini spotted a pre-existing issue:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260504-fbnic-pcs-fix-v2-1-de45192821d9%40meta.com
does not block this patch but could deserve a follow-up.
Thanks,
Paolo