Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) 
to consider:
- [Medium] dyndbg: race during module load bypasses ABI protection permanently
--

commit c8a052c030fff7b63aa2d9e4c2dc3aa455948704
Author: Jim Cromie <[email protected]>

dyndbg: resolve "protection" of class'd pr_debug

This patch implements an ABI protection mechanism for dynamically debugged
classes by binding a controlling sysfs parameter to classmaps. If a module
parameter is configured, it protects class'd callsites from being
accidentally modified by un-classed wildcard queries.

> diff --git a/lib/dynamic_debug.c b/lib/dynamic_debug.c
> index 636a88994a774..d300d44c1a82e 100644
> --- a/lib/dynamic_debug.c
> +++ b/lib/dynamic_debug.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -252,7 +294,28 @@ static bool ddebug_match_desc(const struct ddebug_query 
> *query,
>           dp->lineno > query->last_lineno)
>               return false;
>  
> -     return true;
> +     /*
> +      * above are all satisfied, so we can make final decisions:
> +      * 1- class FOO or implied class __DEFAULT__
> +      * 2- site.is_classed or not
> +      */
> +     if (query->class_string) {
> +             /* class FOO given, exact match required */
> +             return (dp->class_id == selected_class);
> +     }
> +     /* query class __DEFAULT__ by omission. */
> +     if (dp->class_id == _DPRINTK_CLASS_DFLT) {
> +             /* un-classed site */
> +             return true;
> +     }
> +     /* site is class'd */
> +     site_map = ddebug_find_map_by_class_id(di, dp->class_id);
> +     if (!site_map) {
> +             WARN_ONCE(1, "unknown class_id %d, check %s's CLASSMAP 
> definitions", dp->class_id, di->mod_name);
> +             return false;
> +     }
> +     /* module(-param) decides protection */
> +     return !ddebug_class_wants_protection(site_map);
>  }

[Severity: Medium]
Does this code expose a race condition when a module is loading?

Looking at ddebug_add_module(), the module is added to ddebug_tables and the
ddebug_lock is dropped before map->controlling_param is initialized:

lib/dynamic_debug.c:ddebug_add_module() {
        ...
        mutex_lock(&ddebug_lock);
        list_add_tail(&dt->link, &ddebug_tables);
        mutex_unlock(&ddebug_lock);

        if (dt->info.maps.len)
                ddebug_apply_class_maps(&dt->info);
        ...
}

If a concurrent wildcard query (like echo -p > /proc/dynamic_debug/control)
is processed while the lock is dropped but before ddebug_apply_class_maps()
finishes binding the parameter, site_map->controlling_param will be NULL.

This causes ddebug_class_wants_protection() to return false, bypassing the
protection and erroneously enabling the callsites.

[ ... ]

> @@ -772,11 +833,14 @@ static int param_set_dyndbg_module_classes(const char 
> *instr,
>                                          const struct kernel_param *kp,
>                                          const char *mod_name)
>  {
> -     const struct ddebug_class_param *dcp = kp->arg;
> -     const struct ddebug_class_map *map = dcp->map;
> +     struct ddebug_class_param *dcp = kp->arg;
> +     struct ddebug_class_map *map = dcp->map;
>       u32 inrep, new_bits, old_bits, old_val;
>       int rc, totct = 0;
>  
> +     if (map && !map->controlling_param)
> +             map->controlling_param = dcp;

[Severity: Medium]
Is it safe to assign map->controlling_param here without holding
ddebug_lock or using WRITE_ONCE()?

Since this shared state is accessed by concurrent queries, could this
cause a data race?

[ ... ]

> @@ -1332,25 +1395,40 @@ static void ddebug_sync_classbits(const struct 
> kernel_param *kp, const char *mod
>       }
>  }
>  
> -static void ddebug_match_apply_kparam(const struct kernel_param *kp,
> -                                   const struct ddebug_class_map *map,
> -                                   const char *mod_name)
> +static struct ddebug_class_param *
> +ddebug_get_classmap_kparam(const struct kernel_param *kp,
> +                        const struct ddebug_class_map *map)
> +{
> +     struct ddebug_class_param *dcp;
> +
> +     if (kp->ops != &param_ops_dyndbg_classes)
> +             return NULL;
> +
> +     dcp = (struct ddebug_class_param *)kp->arg;
> +     return (map == dcp->map)
> +             ? dcp : (struct ddebug_class_param *)NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void ddebug_match_apply_kparam(const struct kernel_param *kp,
> +                                   struct ddebug_class_map *map,
> +                                   const char *mod_name)
>  {
> +     struct ddebug_class_param *dcp = ddebug_get_classmap_kparam(kp, map);
>  
>       if (dcp && dcp->map == map) {
> +             /*
> +              * Bind controlling_param to activate ABI protection in
> +              * ddebug_match_desc(), shielding callsites from non-class
> +              * wildcard (>control) queries.
> +              */
> +             map->controlling_param = dcp;
>               v2pr_info(" kp:%s.%s =0x%x", mod_name, kp->name, *dcp->bits);
>               vpr_cm_info(map, " %s maps ", mod_name);
>               ddebug_sync_classbits(kp, mod_name);
>       }
>  }

[Severity: Medium]
Can the delayed assignment of map->controlling_param combined with
ddebug_sync_classbits() result in permanent desynchronization?

During the race window in ddebug_add_module() mentioned above, callsites
can be erroneously enabled by a concurrent query. Once the module loading
thread resumes, it binds map->controlling_param here and calls
ddebug_sync_classbits().

However, ddebug_sync_classbits() passes 0 for old_bits:

lib/dynamic_debug.c:ddebug_sync_classbits() {
        ...
        case DD_CLASS_TYPE_DISJOINT_BITS:
                val = READ_ONCE(*dcp->bits);
                new_bits = val;
                v2pr_info("  %s: classbits: 0x%x\n", KP_NAME(kp), new_bits);
                ddebug_apply_class_bitmap(dcp, &new_bits, 0, modname);
        ...
}

Because old_bits is 0, the function skips resetting any class bits that are
supposed to be off (since it sees new_bits (0) == old_bits (0)). Doesn't this
prevent the synchronizer from noticing and clearing the erroneously enabled
callsites?

-- 
Sashiko AI review ยท 
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=32

Reply via email to