* [PATCH] iio: cros_ec: fix an use-after-free in cros_ec_sensors_push_data()
@ 2023-08-28 9:43 Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-08-28 10:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tzung-Bi Shih @ 2023-08-28 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bleung, groeck, jic23, lars
Cc: chrome-platform, tzungbi, gwendal, linux-iio, dianders, swboyd,
stable
cros_ec_sensors_push_data() reads some `indio_dev` states (e.g.
iio_buffer_enabled() and `indio_dev->active_scan_mask`) without holding
the `mlock`.
An use-after-free on `indio_dev->active_scan_mask` was observed. The
call trace:
[...]
_find_next_bit
cros_ec_sensors_push_data
cros_ec_sensorhub_event
blocking_notifier_call_chain
cros_ec_irq_thread
It was caused by a race condition: one thread just freed
`active_scan_mask` at [1]; while another thread tried to access the
memory at [2].
Fix it by acquiring the `mlock` before accessing the `indio_dev` states.
[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c#L1189
[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5/source/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c#L198
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: aa984f1ba4a4 ("iio: cros_ec: Register to cros_ec_sensorhub when EC supports FIFO")
Signed-off-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
---
drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
index b72d39fc2434..a514d0dbafc7 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
@@ -182,17 +182,20 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_push_data(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
s16 *data,
s64 timestamp)
{
+ struct iio_dev_opaque *iio_dev_opaque = to_iio_dev_opaque(indio_dev);
struct cros_ec_sensors_core_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
s16 *out;
s64 delta;
unsigned int i;
+ mutex_lock(&iio_dev_opaque->mlock);
+
/*
* Ignore samples if the buffer is not set: it is needed if the ODR is
* set but the buffer is not enabled yet.
*/
if (!iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev))
- return 0;
+ goto exit;
out = (s16 *)st->samples;
for_each_set_bit(i,
@@ -210,6 +213,8 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_push_data(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, st->samples,
timestamp + delta);
+exit:
+ mutex_unlock(&iio_dev_opaque->mlock);
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cros_ec_sensors_push_data);
--
2.42.0.rc1.204.g551eb34607-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec: fix an use-after-free in cros_ec_sensors_push_data()
2023-08-28 9:43 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec: fix an use-after-free in cros_ec_sensors_push_data() Tzung-Bi Shih
@ 2023-08-28 10:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-29 3:09 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2023-08-28 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tzung-Bi Shih
Cc: bleung, groeck, lars, chrome-platform, gwendal, linux-iio,
dianders, swboyd, stable
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 17:43:39 +0800
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote:
> cros_ec_sensors_push_data() reads some `indio_dev` states (e.g.
> iio_buffer_enabled() and `indio_dev->active_scan_mask`) without holding
> the `mlock`.
>
> An use-after-free on `indio_dev->active_scan_mask` was observed. The
> call trace:
> [...]
> _find_next_bit
> cros_ec_sensors_push_data
> cros_ec_sensorhub_event
> blocking_notifier_call_chain
> cros_ec_irq_thread
>
> It was caused by a race condition: one thread just freed
> `active_scan_mask` at [1]; while another thread tried to access the
> memory at [2].
>
> Fix it by acquiring the `mlock` before accessing the `indio_dev` states.
>
> [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c#L1189
> [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5/source/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c#L198
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: aa984f1ba4a4 ("iio: cros_ec: Register to cros_ec_sensorhub when EC supports FIFO")
> Signed-off-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Hi.
That's an interesting corner case and the comment above the iio_buffer_enabled() call
at least lets us know why this happens. A normal driver cannot call
iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() unless the buffer is enabled
(and hence active_scan_mask is fixed), but here, for convenience the call is made anyway
if we race such that iio_buffer_enabled() is called and correct says the buffer is
enabled, but then immediately after that it is at least briefly disabled.
Now I'm not keen on mlock being touched by a driver because is an internal implementation
detail.
Can we use iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() here? I believe that has the right handling
even though I don't think we've used it to protect iio_push_* before. Normally it's about
enforcing we stay in the mode if the read out of a channel needs to be handled differently
in a read_raw() callback.
if (iio_device_claim_buffer_mode(indio_dev) < 0) {
/* Not in buffer mode so fine to drop out - we got -EBUSY*/
return 0;
}
//Otherwise mlock is held - though that's an implementation detail all we care about is we can't exit buffer mode.
...
iio_push_...
iio_device_release_buffer_mode(indio_dev);
return 0;
Thanks for the bug report and analysis.
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> index b72d39fc2434..a514d0dbafc7 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c
> @@ -182,17 +182,20 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_push_data(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> s16 *data,
> s64 timestamp)
> {
> + struct iio_dev_opaque *iio_dev_opaque = to_iio_dev_opaque(indio_dev);
> struct cros_ec_sensors_core_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> s16 *out;
> s64 delta;
> unsigned int i;
>
> + mutex_lock(&iio_dev_opaque->mlock);
> +
> /*
> * Ignore samples if the buffer is not set: it is needed if the ODR is
> * set but the buffer is not enabled yet.
> */
> if (!iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev))
> - return 0;
> + goto exit;
>
> out = (s16 *)st->samples;
> for_each_set_bit(i,
> @@ -210,6 +213,8 @@ int cros_ec_sensors_push_data(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, st->samples,
> timestamp + delta);
>
> +exit:
> + mutex_unlock(&iio_dev_opaque->mlock);
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cros_ec_sensors_push_data);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec: fix an use-after-free in cros_ec_sensors_push_data()
2023-08-28 10:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2023-08-29 3:09 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tzung-Bi Shih @ 2023-08-29 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron
Cc: bleung, groeck, lars, chrome-platform, gwendal, linux-iio,
dianders, swboyd, stable
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:53:59AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Can we use iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() here? I believe that has the right handling
> even though I don't think we've used it to protect iio_push_* before. Normally it's about
> enforcing we stay in the mode if the read out of a channel needs to be handled differently
> in a read_raw() callback.
>
> if (iio_device_claim_buffer_mode(indio_dev) < 0) {
> /* Not in buffer mode so fine to drop out - we got -EBUSY*/
> return 0;
> }
> //Otherwise mlock is held - though that's an implementation detail all we care about is we can't exit buffer mode.
> ...
> iio_push_...
> iio_device_release_buffer_mode(indio_dev);
> return 0;
Ack, fix it in v2(https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-iio/patch/20230829030622.1571852-1-tzungbi@kernel.org/).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-29 3:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-08-28 9:43 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec: fix an use-after-free in cros_ec_sensors_push_data() Tzung-Bi Shih
2023-08-28 10:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-29 3:09 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox