On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 05:07:54AM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:47:15AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:27:10PM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Recover the private_data to its original one.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct fops_replacement *_recover_private_data(struct file *filp)
> > > +{
> > > + struct fops_replacement *fr = filp->private_data;
> > > +
> > > + filp->private_data = fr->orig_private_data;
> > > + return fr;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Replace the private_data to fops_replacement.
> > > + */
> > > +static void _replace_private_data(struct fops_replacement *fr)
> > > +{
> > > + fr->filp->private_data = fr;
> > > +}
> >
> > This switching of private_data isn't reasonable, it breaks too much
> > stuff. I think I showed a better idea in my sketch.
>
> The approach assumes the filp->private_data should be set once by the
> filp->f_op->open() if any. Is it common that the filp->private_data
> be updated in other file operations?
You can set it once during open, but you can't change it around every
fops callback. This stuff is all concurrent.
> > This probably doesn't work out, is likely to make a memory leak.
> > It will be hard for the owning driver to free its per-file memory
> > without access to release.
>
> Ah, I think this reveals a drawback of the approach.
> - Without calling ->release(), some memory may leak.
> - With calling ->release(), some UAF may happen.
It just means the user of this needs to understand there are
limitations on what release can do. Usually release just frees memory,
that is fine.
I think it would be strange for a release to touch revocable data,
that might suggest some larger problem.
Jason
