> From: Brian Norris [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:07 AM
> To: Xinming Hu
> Cc: Linux Wireless; Kalle Valo; Dmitry Torokhov; Amitkumar Karwar;
> Cathy Luo
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 03/11] mwifiex: resolve races between
> async FW init (failure) and device removal
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:57:04PM +0800, Xinming Hu wrote:
> > From: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
> >
> > It's possible for the FW init sequence to fail, which will trigger a
> > device cleanup sequence in mwifiex_fw_dpc(). This sequence can race
> > with device suspend() or remove() (e.g., reboot or unbind), and can
> > trigger use-after-free issues. Currently, this driver attempts
> > (poorly) to synchronize remove() using a semaphore, but it doesn't
> > protect some of the critical sections properly. Particularly, we grab
> > a pointer to the adapter struct (card->adapter) without checking if
> > it's being freed or not. We later do a NULL check on the adapter, but
> > that doesn't work if the adapter was freed.
> >
> > Also note that the PCIe interface driver doesn't ever set
> > card->adapter to NULL, so even if we get the synchronization right,
> we
> > still might try to redo the cleanup in ->remove(), even if the FW
> init
> > failure sequence already did it.
> >
> > This patch replaces the static semaphore with a per-device completion
> > struct, and uses that completion to synchronize the remove() thread
> > with the mwifiex_fw_dpc(). A future patch will utilize this
> completion
> > to synchronize the suspend() thread as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v2: Same as v1
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c | 46
> > ++++++++++-------------------
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h | 13 +++++---
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 18 +++++------
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.h |  2 ++
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 18 +++++------
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.h |  2 ++
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/usb.c  | 23 +++++++--------
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/usb.h  |  2 ++
> >  8 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> > index c710d5e..09d46d6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> > @@ -521,7 +521,6 @@ static void mwifiex_fw_dpc(const struct firmware
> *firmware, void *context)
> >     struct mwifiex_private *priv;
> >     struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter = context;
> >     struct mwifiex_fw_image fw;
> > -   struct semaphore *sem = adapter->card_sem;
> >     bool init_failed = false;
> >     struct wireless_dev *wdev;
> >
> > @@ -670,7 +669,8 @@ static void mwifiex_fw_dpc(const struct firmware
> *firmware, void *context)
> >     }
> >     if (init_failed)
> >             mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter);
> > -   up(sem);
> > +   /* Tell all current and future waiters we're finished */
> > +   complete_all(adapter->fw_done);
> 
> This part introduces a new use-after-free. We need to dereference
> adapter->fw_done *before* we free the adapter in
> mwifiex_free_adapter().
> So you need a diff that looks something like this:
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c
> @@ -514,6 +514,7 @@ static void mwifiex_fw_dpc(const struct firmware
> *firmware, void *context)
>       struct mwifiex_fw_image fw;
>       bool init_failed = false;
>       struct wireless_dev *wdev;
> +     struct completion *fw_done = adapter->fw_done;
> 
>       if (!firmware) {
>               mwifiex_dbg(adapter, ERROR,
> @@ -654,7 +655,7 @@ done:
>       if (init_failed)
>               mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter);
>       /* Tell all current and future waiters we're finished */
> -     complete_all(adapter->fw_done);
> +     complete_all(fw_done);
>       return;
>  }
> 

Thanks. I will include this change in v3.

Regards,
Amitkumar

Reply via email to