LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Wentao_Liang <Wentao_Liang_g@163.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:of:property.c: fix a potential double put (release) bug
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 18:20:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGETcx-37i6npQpfK42bk-oyxnazvRE6_LXNW9Ske8K=PwFTxg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx-C1avGdGLS=X7pc-q3u_BZv7wJwMWEJ6KFbDYYafeP2A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:11 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:07 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > +Saravana
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 8:26 AM Wentao_Liang <Wentao_Liang_g@163.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In line 1423 (#1), of_link_to_phandle() is called. In the function
> > > (line 1140, #2), "of_node_put(sup_np);" drops the reference to phandle
> > > and may cause phandle to be released. However, after the function
> > > returns, the phandle is subsequently dropped again (line 1424, #3) by
> > > the same put function. Double putting the phandle can lead to an
> > > incorrect reference count.
> > >
> > > We believe that the first put of the phandle is unnecessary (#3). We
> > > can fix the above bug by removing the redundant "of_node_put()" in line
> > > 1423.
> > >
> > > 1401 static int of_link_property(struct device_node *con_np,
> > >                                 const char *prop_name)
> > > 1402 {
> > > ...
> > > 1409     while (!matched && s->parse_prop) {
> > > ...
> > > 1414
> > > 1415         while ((phandle = s->parse_prop(con_np, prop_name, i))) {
> > > ...
> > >                  //#1 phandle is dropped in this function
> > > 1423             of_link_to_phandle(con_dev_np, phandle);
> > >
> > > 1424             //#3 the second drop to phandle
> > >                  of_node_put(phandle);
> > >
> > > 1425             of_node_put(con_dev_np);
> > > 1426         }
> > > ...
> > > 1428     }
> > > 1429     return 0;
> > > 1430 }
> > >
> > > 1095 static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device_node *con_np,
> > > 1096                   struct device_node *sup_np)
> > > 1097 {
> > > 1098     struct device *sup_dev;
> > > 1099     struct device_node *tmp_np = sup_np;
> > > ...
> > > 1140     of_node_put(sup_np);  //#2 the first drop to phandle
> > >                                //   (unnecessary)
> > > 1141
> > > 1142     return 0;
> > > 1143 }
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wentao_Liang <Wentao_Liang_g@163.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/of/property.c | 1 -
> > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > index 6c028632f425..408fdde1a20c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > @@ -1137,7 +1137,6 @@ static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device_node *con_np,
> > >         put_device(sup_dev);
> > >
> > >         fwnode_link_add(of_fwnode_handle(con_np), of_fwnode_handle(sup_np));
> > > -       of_node_put(sup_np);
>
> Hi Wentao,
>
> Thanks for noticing and reporting the bug! Your analysis is correct,
> but the fix is definitely wrong. For one, the reference to the node
> phandle is pointing to can be dropped in of_link_to_phandle() when it
> calls of_get_compat_node(). It could also be dropped in one of the
> error paths. So, now you'll be incorrectly dropping the reference for
> the wrong node. Let me send out a fix and  mention you as the
> reporter.
>

I spoke too soon. I think there is no refcount problem because
of_link_to_phandle() makes sure it doesn't change the ref count of any
of the DT nodes passed in as input. If you see of_get_compat_node(),
you'll notice that it does a of_node_get() first. So it returns a node
pointer (that could be the same as the input) and it makes sure it
increments that refcount for the node it's returning. And since we are
doing:

sup_np = of_get_compat_node(sup_np);

We are ensuring that by the time of_link_phandle() returns, we haven't
changed the refcount of any of the nodes.

So, I don't think there's any bug here.

-Saravana

      reply	other threads:[~2021-08-19  1:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-18 13:09 Wentao_Liang
2021-08-18 14:07 ` Rob Herring
2021-08-19  1:11   ` Saravana Kannan
2021-08-19  1:20     ` Saravana Kannan [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAGETcx-37i6npQpfK42bk-oyxnazvRE6_LXNW9Ske8K=PwFTxg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=saravanak@google.com \
    --cc=Wentao_Liang_g@163.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] drivers:of:property.c: fix a potential double put (release) bug' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).