Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:21:05 -0700 | From | Luis Chamberlain <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: Fix use-after-free Read in firmware_loading_store |
| |
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:46:24PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 7/15/21 4:28 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 10:38:12AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > > However I am seeing the following over and over again in the > > > log - hence I think it is safer to check the aborted status > > > in __fw_load_abort(). > > > > > > ? __list_del_entry_valid+0xe0/0xf0 > > > [ 348.604808][T12994] __list_del_entry_valid+0xe0/0xf0 > > > [ 348.610020][T12994] firmware_loading_store+0x141/0x650 > > > [ 348.615761][T12994] ? firmware_data_write+0x4e0/0x4e0 > > > [ 348.621064][T12994] ? sysfs_file_ops+0x1c0/0x1c0 > > > [ 348.625921][T12994] dev_attr_store+0x50/0x80 > > > > > > Also the fallback logic takes actions based on errors as in > > > fw_load_sysfs_fallback() that returns -EAGAIN which would > > > trigger request_firmware() again. > > > > > > Based on all of this I think this fix is needed, if only I can > > > test for sure. > > > > Shuah, curious if you had read this patch from Anirudh Rayabharam > > and my response to that v4 patch iteration? > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210518155921.4181-1-mail@anirudhrb.com > > > > Yes. I realized I am trying to fix the same problem we have been > discussing. :) Sorry for the noise.
No worries, and thanks again for you help!
> Ignore my patch. I will follow the thread.
OK ! I think all we need is just Anirudh to split his patch to remove the -EAGAIN return value in a separate patch as a first step, documenting in the commmit log that:
The only motivation on her part with using -EAGAIN on commit 0542ad88fbdd81bb ("firmware loader: Fix _request_firmware_load() return val for fw load abort") was to distinguish the error from -ENOMEM, and so there is no real reason in keeping it. Keeping -ETIMEDOUT is much telling of what the reason for a failure is, so just use that.
Then his second patch would be simplified without the -EAGAIN condition.
All I asked was to confirm that the -ETIMEDOUT was indeed propagated.
Anirudh, sorry for the trouble, but can I ask you for a v5 with two patches as described above?
Luis
| |