Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Hold a reference on parent device

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 01:55:36PM CEST, idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:29:31AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 05:35:15PM CEST, idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 02:50:14PM CEST, idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
>> >> >@@ -91,6 +92,7 @@ static void devlink_release(struct work_struct *work)
>> >> > 
>> >> > 	mutex_destroy(&devlink->lock);
>> >> > 	lockdep_unregister_key(&devlink->lock_key);
>> >> >+	put_device(devlink->dev);
>> >> 
>> >> In this case I think you have to make sure this is called before
>> >> devlink_free() ends. After the caller of devlink_free() returns (most
>> >> probably .remove callback), nothing stops module from being removed.
>> >> 
>> >> I don't see other way. Utilize complete() here and wait_for_completion()
>> >> at the end of devlink_free().
>> >
>> >I might be missing something, but how can I do something like
>> >wait_for_completion(&devlink->comp) at the end of devlink_free()? After
>> >I call devlink_put() the devlink instance can be freed and the
>> >wait_for_completion() call will result in a UAF.
>> 
>> You have to move the free() to devlink_free()
>> Basically, all the things done in devlink_put that are symmetrical to
>> the initialization done in devlink_alloc() should be moved there.
>
>But it's a bit weird to dereference 'devlink' (to wait for the
>completion) after calling 'devlink_put(devlink)'. Given that this

Well, I don't see any problem in that.

>problem seems to be specific to netdevsim, don't you think it's better
>to fix it in netdevsim rather than working around it in devlink?

Up to you, both work.


>
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> If the completion in devlink_put() area rings a bell for you, let me save
>> >> you the trouble looking it up:
>> >> 9053637e0da7 ("devlink: remove the registration guarantee of references")
>> >> This commit removed that. But it is a different usage.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > 	kfree(devlink);
>> >> > }
>> >> > 
>> >> >@@ -204,6 +206,7 @@ struct devlink *devlink_alloc_ns(const struct devlink_ops *ops,
>> >> > 	if (ret < 0)
>> >> > 		goto err_xa_alloc;
>> >> > 
>> >> >+	get_device(dev);
>> >> > 	devlink->dev = dev;
>> >> > 	devlink->ops = ops;
>> >> > 	xa_init_flags(&devlink->ports, XA_FLAGS_ALLOC);
>> >> >-- 
>> >> >2.40.1
>> >> >