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
next prev parent 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