lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] usb: gadget: u_serial: Add null pointer check in gserial_resume
From


On 10-02-23 02:35 am, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:57:17PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09-02-23 09:33 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:13:37PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09-02-23 08:39 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>> You should consider having _two_ spinlocks: One in the gs_port structure
>>>>> (the way it is now) and a separate global lock. The first would be used
>>>>> in situations where you know you have a valid pointer. The second would
>>>>> be used in situations where you don't know if the pointer is non-NULL
>>>>> or where you are changing the pointer's value.
>>>> Lets say we replaced the existing spinlock in gserial_resume and
>>>> gserial_disconnect with a new static spinlock, and kept the spinlocks in
>>>> other functions unchanged. In that case, wouldn't it cause additional race
>>>> conditions as we are using 2 different locks.
>>>
>>> Not race conditions, but possibilities for deadlock.
>>>
>>> Indeed, you would have to be very careful about avoiding deadlock
>>> scenarios. In particular, you would have to ensure that the code never
>>> tries to acquire the global spinlock while already holding one of the
>>> per-port spinlocks.
>>>
>>> Alan Stern
>> Hi Alan, instead of doing these and causing potential regressions, can we
>> just have the null pointer check which i suggested in the beginning? The
>> major concern was that port might become null after the null pointer check.
>
> What you are describing is a data race: gserial_disconnect() can write
> to gser->ioport at the same time that gserial_resume() reads from it.
> Unless you're working on a fast path -- which this isn't -- you should
> strive to avoid data races by using proper locking. That means adding
> the extra spinlock, or finding some other way to make these two accesses
> be mutually exclusive.
>
> With a little care you can ensure there won't be any regressions. Just
> do what I said above: Make sure the code never tries to acquire the
> global spinlock while already holding one of the per-port spinlocks.
>
>> We mark gser->ioport as null pointer in gserial_disconnect, and in
>> gserial_resume we copy the gser->ioport to *port in the beginning.
>>
>> struct gs_port *port = gser->ioport;
>>
>> And hence it wont cause null pointer deref after the check as we don't
>> de-reference anything from gser->ioport afterwards. We only use the local
>> pointer *port afterwards.
>
> You cannot depend on this to work the way you want. The compiler will
> optimize your source code, and one of the optimizations might be to
> eliminate the "port" variable entirely and replace it with gser->ioport.
>
> Alan Stern
Hi Alan, Thanks for the detailed info. I checked and included few cases
here.

This would cause a deadlock if gserial_disconnect acquires port_lock and
gserial_resume acquires static_lock.

gserial_disconnect {
spin_lock(port)
...
spin_lock(static)

gser->ioport = NULL;

spin_unlock(static)
...
spin_unlock(port)
}

gserial_resume {
struct gs_port *port = gser->ioport;

spin_lock(static)
if (!port)
return
spin_lock(port)
spin_unlock(static)

...
spin_unlock(port)
}

------------------------------------------------------------------

This would cause additional races when gserial_disconnect releases
port_lock and some other functions acquire it.

gserial_disconnect {
spin_lock(port)
...
spin_unlock(port)
spin_lock(static)

gser->ioport = NULL;

spin_unlock(static)
spin_lock(port)
...
spin_unlock(port)
}

gserial_resume {
struct gs_port *port = gser->ioport;

spin_lock(static)
if (!port)
return
spin_lock(port)
spin_unlock(static)

...
spin_unlock(port)
}

------------------------------------------------------------------

And this seems like a viable option to me, what do you suggest?

gserial_disconnect {
spin_lock(static)
spin_lock(port)
...
gser->ioport = NULL;
...
spin_lock(port)
spin_unlock(static)

}

gserial_resume {
struct gs_port *port = gser->ioport;

spin_lock(static)
if (!port)
return
spin_lock(port)

...
spin_unlock(port)
spin_unlock(static)
}

Thanks,
Prashanth K

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:17    [W:0.060 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site