From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Derek J. Clark" <derekjohn.clark@gmail.com>
Cc: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] HID: hid-msi: Add MSI Claw configuration driver
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 02:33:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260522023350.B99491F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260522015518.1111290-2-derekjohn.clark@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Sysfs attributes remain active during and after device removal, leading to a Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) race condition and Use-After-Free of HID transport structures.
- [High] Calling the sleeping function `hid_hw_close()` while holding a spinlock in `claw_remove()`, causing a kernel panic.
- [Low] Mixing `goto` error handling with scope-based cleanups (`__free()` and `guard()`) in the same function.
--
commit 76e865e5c59094dfdc13a67a7954da1cc82124bc
Author: Derek J. Clark <derekjohn.clark@gmail.com>
HID: hid-msi: Add MSI Claw configuration driver
This commit adds a new HID configuration driver for the MSI Claw handheld PC.
It introduces the initial driver structure, including sysfs attributes to
control the gamepad mode, M-key behavior, and device reset commands.
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-msi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-msi.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..40b16253abbb3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-msi.c
[ ... ]
> +static int claw_hw_output_report(struct hid_device *hdev, u8 index, u8 *data,
> + size_t len, unsigned int timeout)
> +{
> + unsigned char *dmabuf __free(kfree) = NULL;
> + u8 header[] = { CLAW_OUTPUT_REPORT_ID, 0, 0, 0x3c, index };
> + struct claw_drvdata *drvdata = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> + size_t header_size = ARRAY_SIZE(header);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (header_size + len > CLAW_PACKET_SIZE)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* We can't use a devm_alloc reusable buffer without side effects during suspend */
> + dmabuf = kzalloc(CLAW_PACKET_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!dmabuf)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + memcpy(dmabuf, header, header_size);
> + if (data && len)
> + memcpy(dmabuf + header_size, data, len);
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&drvdata->cfg_mutex);
> + if (timeout) {
> + reinit_completion(&drvdata->send_cmd_complete);
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &drvdata->cmd_lock) {
> + drvdata->waiting_cmd = index;
> + drvdata->waiting_for_ack = true;
> + drvdata->cmd_status = -ETIMEDOUT;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + dev_dbg(&hdev->dev, "Send data as raw output report: [%*ph]\n",
> + CLAW_PACKET_SIZE, dmabuf);
> +
> + ret = hid_hw_output_report(hdev, dmabuf, CLAW_PACKET_SIZE);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_clear_state;
[Severity: Low]
Is it okay to mix goto error labels with scope-based cleanups in the same
function?
According to the cleanup subsystem guidelines, functions should either fully
rely on scope-based cleanups or use manual cleanups entirely to avoid
confusing ownership semantics.
> +
> + ret = ret == CLAW_PACKET_SIZE ? 0 : -EIO;
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_clear_state;
> +
> + if (timeout) {
> + ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&drvdata->send_cmd_complete,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout));
> +
> + dev_dbg(&hdev->dev, "Remaining timeout: %u\n", ret);
> + ret = ret > 0 ? drvdata->cmd_status : ret ?: -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> +err_clear_state:
> + if (timeout) {
> + guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&drvdata->cmd_lock);
> + drvdata->waiting_cmd = CLAW_COMMAND_TYPE_NONE;
> + drvdata->waiting_for_ack = false;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
[ ... ]
> +static ssize_t gamepad_mode_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct hid_device *hdev = to_hid_device(dev);
> + struct claw_drvdata *drvdata = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> + int i, ret = -EINVAL;
> + u8 data[2];
> +
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &drvdata->registration_lock) {
> + /* Pairs with smp_store_release from cfg_setup_fn in system_wq context */
> + if (!smp_load_acquire(&drvdata->gamepad_registered))
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
[Severity: High]
Can this lead to a use-after-free during device disconnect?
If a sysfs thread calls gamepad_mode_store() and gets preempted right after
releasing registration_lock here, a concurrent device disconnect could
trigger msi_remove() which clears gamepad_registered.
msi_remove() will then call hid_hw_stop(), destroying the HID transport
structures. When the sysfs thread resumes and continues execution here:
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(claw_gamepad_mode_text); i++) {
> + if (claw_gamepad_mode_text[i] && sysfs_streq(buf, claw_gamepad_mode_text[i])) {
> + ret = i;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + data[0] = ret;
> + scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &drvdata->mode_lock)
> + data[1] = drvdata->mkeys_function;
> +
> + ret = claw_hw_output_report(hdev, CLAW_COMMAND_TYPE_SWITCH_MODE, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data), 0);
It will call claw_hw_output_report() which delegates to hid_hw_output_report()
and accesses the now-destroyed transport structures.
Since devm_device_add_group() is used to register the sysfs attributes, the
sysfs group remains active until after msi_remove() finishes completely.
Should the sysfs group be removed synchronously before hid_hw_stop() is
called to prevent this race?
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return count;
> +}
[ ... ]
> +static void claw_remove(struct hid_device *hdev)
> +{
> + struct claw_drvdata *drvdata = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> +
> + if (!drvdata)
> + return;
> +
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&drvdata->cfg_resume);
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&drvdata->cfg_setup);
> +
> + guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&drvdata->registration_lock);
> + /* Pairs with smp_load_acquire in attribute show/store functions */
> + smp_store_release(&drvdata->gamepad_registered, false);
> +
> + hid_hw_close(hdev);
[Severity: High]
Does this call a sleeping function while holding a spinlock?
The guard() macro acquires registration_lock and holds it until the end of
the function. While this spinlock is held and interrupts are disabled,
hid_hw_close() is called, which attempts to acquire the sleeping mutex
ll_open_lock.
I noticed this is fixed in a later patch in the series by changing guard()
to scoped_guard(), but doesn't this break bisectability by introducing a
kernel panic in this commit?
> +}
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260522015518.1111290-1-derekjohn.clark@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-22 2:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-22 1:55 [PATCH v8 0/4] Add MSI Claw HID Configuration Driver Derek J. Clark
2026-05-22 1:55 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] HID: hid-msi: Add MSI Claw configuration driver Derek J. Clark
2026-05-22 2:33 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-05-22 1:55 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] HID: hid-msi: Add M-key mapping attributes Derek J. Clark
2026-05-22 3:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-22 1:55 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] HID: hid-msi: Add RGB control interface Derek J. Clark
2026-05-22 4:00 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-22 1:55 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] HID: hid-msi: Add Rumble Intensity Attributes Derek J. Clark
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=20260522023350.B99491F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=derekjohn.clark@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox