Re: [PATCH v2] Input: uinput: Avoid Object-Already-Free with a global lock

[Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>]

On 4/23/2019 4:36 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 08:49:44AM +0000, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:51:13PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>> I have taken care this case from ioctl and release point of view.
>>>
>>> Even if the release gets called first it will make the
>>> file->private_data=NULL.
>>> and further call to ioctl will not be a problem as the check is already
>>> there.
>> Al, do we have any protections in VFS layer from userspace hanging onto
>> a file descriptor and calling ioctl() on it even as another thread
>> calls close() on the same fd?
>>
>> Should the issue be solved by individual drivers, or more careful
>> accounting for currently running operations is needed at VFS layer?
> Neither.  An overlap of ->release() and ->ioctl() is possible only
> if you've got memory corruption somewhere.
>
> close() overlapping ioctl() is certainly possible, and won't trigger
> that at all - sys_ioctl() holds onto reference to struct file, so
> its refcount won't reach zero until we are done with it.

Al,

i tried to put traceprintk inside ioctl after fdget and fdput on a 
simple call of open  => ioctl => close
on /dev/uinput.

           uinput-532   [002] ....    45.312044: SYSC_ioctl: 2     <= 
f_count >    <After fdget()
           uinput-532   [002] ....    45.312055: SYSC_ioctl: 
2            <After fdput()
           uinput-532   [004] ....    45.313766: uinput_open: uinput: 1
           uinput-532   [004] ....    45.313783: SYSC_ioctl: 1
           uinput-532   [004] ....    45.313788: uinput_ioctl_handler: 
uinput: uinput_ioctl_handler, 1
           uinput-532   [004] ....    45.313835: SYSC_ioctl: 1
           uinput-532   [004] ....    45.313843: uinput_release: uinput:  0


So while a ioctl is running the f_count is 1, so a fput could be run and 
do atomic_long_dec_and_test
this could call release right ?

-Mukesh