From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Yi Yang <yiyang13@huawei.com>
Cc: jirislaby@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tty: vt: selection: fix soft lockup in paste_selection()
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:38:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2024040943-tightwad-handcuff-5eb7@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240313094529.679957-1-yiyang13@huawei.com>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:45:29AM +0000, Yi Yang wrote:
> Soft lockup occurs when vt device used n_null ldisc, n_null_receivebuf()
> is not implemented in null_ldisc. So tty_ldisc_receive_buf always return
> 0 in paste_selection(), this cause deadloop and cause soft lockup.
Why is a vt using n_null?
What is causing that?
>
> This can be reproduced as follows:
> int ldisc = 0x1b; // 0x1b is n_null
> struct{
> char subcode;
> struct tiocl_selection sel;
> } data;
> date.subcode = TIOCL_SETSEL;
> data.sel.xs = 0;
> data.sel.xe = 1;
> data.sel.ys = 0;
> data.sel.ye = 1;
> data.sel.sel_mode = TIOCL_SELCHAR;
> char bytes[2] = {TIOCL_PASTESEL, 0};
> open("ttyxx", O_RDWR) // open a vt device
> ioctl(fd, TIOCSETD, &ldisc) // set ldisc to n_null
> ioctl(fd, TIOCLINUX, &data.subcode);
> ioctl(fd, TIOCLINUX, bytes); // cause deadloop
>
> Fix soft lockup by check receive_buf() and receive_buf2() is NULL.
As you had permissions to do this, why prevent it?
>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Yang <yiyang13@huawei.com>
> ---
>
> v2:Change Check Condition.
>
> drivers/tty/vt/selection.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
> index 564341f1a74f..715e111376a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/selection.c
> @@ -397,6 +397,12 @@ int paste_selection(struct tty_struct *tty)
> ld = tty_ldisc_ref_wait(tty);
> if (!ld)
> return -EIO; /* ldisc was hung up */
> +
> + /*tty_ldisc_receive_buf() won't do anything and cause deadloop later*/
Comments need to be properly formated.
And I do not understand this comment sorry.
> + if (!ld->ops->receive_buf && !ld->ops->receive_buf2) {
Why check reciev_buf pointers here? What is that causing?
This needs to be documented a lot better please.
thanks,
greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-09 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-13 9:45 [PATCH v2] tty: vt: selection: fix soft lockup in paste_selection() Yi Yang
2024-04-09 13:38 ` Greg KH [this message]
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=2024040943-tightwad-handcuff-5eb7@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yiyang13@huawei.com \
/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