Linux Input/HID development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Chen Changcheng" <ccc194101@163.com>
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: corsair: do not re-schedule LED worker after it has been cancelled
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 07:47:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817074730.408701F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817072831.139954-1-ccc194101@163.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:

New issues:
- [High] Moving cancel_work_sync() before led_classdev_unregister() in the probe error path introduces a TOCTOU race with concurrent sysfs writes, leading to a Use-After-Free.

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Hardware events can trigger Use-After-Free in corsair_event() due to hid_hw_stop() being called after freeing driver data in corsair_remove().
- [High] TOCTOU Use-after-free in LED workers due to led_classdev_unregister() being called before cancel_work_sync() in cleanup functions.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] HID: corsair: do not re-schedule LED worker after it has been cancelled ---
commit 4542e75f6964d50f56a268d347abdebb867081d5
Author: Chen Changcheng <chenchangcheng@kylinos.cn>

HID: corsair: do not re-schedule LED worker after it has been cancelled

This commit attempts to fix a use-after-free by preventing the LED worker
from being re-scheduled after it has been cancelled. It adds a removed flag
check and reorders the cleanup sequence in the probe error path.

> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-corsair.c b/drivers/hid/hid-corsair.c
> index 21cd8b12a7572..dba233b99e5d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-corsair.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-corsair.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -507,8 +510,8 @@ static int k90_init_macro_functions(struct hid_device *dev)
>  
>  fail_sysfs:
>  	k90->record_led.removed = true;
> -	led_classdev_unregister(&k90->record_led.cdev);
>  	cancel_work_sync(&k90->record_led.work);
> +	led_classdev_unregister(&k90->record_led.cdev);

[Severity: High]
Does swapping these calls introduce a Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use race
with concurrent sysfs writes?

Since led_classdev_unregister() acts as the synchronization barrier against
sysfs writes, moving cancel_work_sync() before it might allow a concurrent
write to bypass the barrier.

Could a concurrent sysfs write evaluate led->removed as false in
k90_brightness_set(), get preempted, and then schedule the work after
cancel_work_sync() has already finished?

Sysfs thread:
k90_brightness_set()
    if (led->removed)
        return;
    <preempted>

Probe error thread:
fail_sysfs:
    k90->record_led.removed = true;
    cancel_work_sync(&k90->record_led.work);
    led_classdev_unregister(&k90->record_led.cdev);

Sysfs thread resumes:
    led->brightness = brightness;
    schedule_work(&led->work);

If the probe error thread then finishes and frees the k90 struct, wouldn't
the newly queued work execute later on freed memory?

>  fail_record_led:
>  	kfree(k90->record_led.cdev.name);
>  fail_record_led_alloc:


This is a pre-existing issue, but looking at the commit message and the
cleanup functions:

The commit message states that a previous commit moved cancel_work_sync()
ahead of led_classdev_unregister() in k90_cleanup_backlight() and
k90_cleanup_macro_functions() to fix a use-after-free. However, looking at
those functions in the current code, led_classdev_unregister() is still
called first:

k90_cleanup_macro_functions(struct hid_device *dev) {
    ...
    led_classdev_unregister(&k90->record_led.cdev);
    cancel_work_sync(&k90->record_led.work);
    ...
}

[Severity: High]
Does calling led_classdev_unregister() before cancel_work_sync() cause a
use-after-free during driver unbind?

led_classdev_unregister() drops the refcount and frees the underlying device
struct. If a worker thread like k90_backlight_work is executing concurrently,
passes the removed check, and gets preempted, it could resume after the
device is freed:

k90_backlight_work(struct work_struct *work) {
    ...
    dev = led->cdev.dev->parent;
    ...
}


This is also a pre-existing issue, but looking at corsair_remove():

corsair_remove(struct hid_device *dev) {
    ...
    k90_cleanup_macro_functions(dev);
    k90_cleanup_backlight(dev);

    hid_hw_stop(dev);
}

[Severity: High]
Does calling hid_hw_stop() after freeing driver data allow hardware events
to trigger a use-after-free?

In k90_cleanup_macro_functions(), the k90 struct is freed via kfree(k90),
but the drvdata->k90 pointer is not set to NULL. Since hid_hw_stop() hasn't
been called yet, the HID core can still deliver incoming USB hardware events.

If an event arrives in this window before the hardware is stopped, could
corsair_event() dereference the dangling pointer?

corsair_event(...) {
    ...
    drvdata->k90->record_led.brightness = 1;
    ...
}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817072831.139954-1-ccc194101@163.com?part=1

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-17  7:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-24  9:19 [PATCH] HID: corsair: fix use-after-free by reordering remove sequence Chen Changcheng
2026-07-24  9:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-27  1:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] HID: corsair: fix two use-after-free bugs on device removal Chen Changcheng
2026-07-27  1:34   ` [PATCH 1/2] HID: corsair: fix use-after-free by reordering remove sequence Chen Changcheng
2026-07-27  1:46     ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-27  1:35   ` [PATCH 2/2] HID: corsair: cancel worker before unregistering LED to fix use-after-free Chen Changcheng
2026-07-27  1:45     ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 18:12     ` [PATCH 0/2] HID: corsair: fix two use-after-free bugs on device removal Jeffin Philip
2026-08-17  7:23       ` Chen Changcheng
2026-08-17  7:28         ` [PATCH] HID: corsair: do not re-schedule LED worker after it has been cancelled Chen Changcheng
2026-08-17  7:47           ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-03 19:22   ` [PATCH 0/2] HID: corsair: fix two use-after-free bugs on device removal Jiri Kosina

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=20260817074730.408701F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=ccc194101@163.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