From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Frank.Li@kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
imx@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:19:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260617071918.F16781F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-10-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Unsafe lockless iteration of `rproc->notifyids` in preemptible context risks Use-After-Free of IDR nodes and `rvring` structures during concurrent device teardown.
- [High] If requesting the 'rx' mailbox channel fails, `priv->tx_ch` is freed but its pointer is not cleared, causing a subsequent start to mistakenly treat initialization as successful.
--
commit 6f600102625eeb04d37188290cefc55632750bc2
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
remoteproc: imx_rproc: Invoke the callback directly
The imx-mailbox driver moved the callback invocation into the threaded
IRQ handler. This means the callback is invoked in preemptible context,
so there is no need to schedule a kworker. This patch removes the workqueue
handling and invokes the callback directly.
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 0dd80e688b0ea..c97bc1c401655 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -835,21 +832,11 @@ static int imx_rproc_notified_idr_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void imx_rproc_vq_work(struct work_struct *work)
> -{
> - struct imx_rproc *priv = container_of(work, struct imx_rproc,
> - rproc_work);
> - struct rproc *rproc = priv->rproc;
> -
> - idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, imx_rproc_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
> -}
> -
> static void imx_rproc_rx_callback(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg)
> {
> struct rproc *rproc = dev_get_drvdata(cl->dev);
> - struct imx_rproc *priv = rproc->priv;
>
> - queue_work(priv->workqueue, &priv->rproc_work);
> + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, imx_rproc_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but since the iteration now runs directly
in the preemptible threaded IRQ handler, does the lack of RCU protection
risk a use-after-free?
During rproc_shutdown(), imx_rproc_stop() frees the mailbox channel, but
without disabling the IRQ, the callback can run concurrently with
rproc_resource_cleanup().
If the threaded IRQ handler is preempted here, could the RCU grace period
elapse while rproc_resource_cleanup() unregisters the device and removes
entries from the notifyids IDR?
rproc_vq_interrupt() also performs a lockless idr_find() lookup on the same
notifyids IDR:
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c:rproc_vq_interrupt() {
...
rvring = idr_find(&rproc->notifyids, notifyid);
...
}
Would wrapping the idr_for_each() call with rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() be necessary to safely iterate the IDR nodes and prevent
use-after-free of the rvring structures?
> }
>
> static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc, bool tx_block)
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential problem in the error
handling within imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init().
If requesting the rx mailbox channel fails, the code frees the tx channel but
does not clear the pointer:
drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c:imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init() {
...
priv->rx_ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, "rx");
if (IS_ERR(priv->rx_ch)) {
mbox_free_channel(priv->tx_ch);
return dev_err_probe(...);
}
...
}
Because priv->tx_ch is not set to NULL, and priv->rx_ch contains an ERR_PTR,
the early exit check at the top of the function evaluates to true on any
subsequent call:
if (priv->tx_ch && priv->rx_ch)
return 0;
If a user retries starting the remoteproc via sysfs, this will incorrectly
return 0 (success) with a dangling priv->tx_ch pointer. When the remoteproc
later sends a kick, imx_rproc_kick() will use this dangling pointer, which
can cause a use-after-free crash.
Could we set priv->tx_ch to NULL after freeing it to prevent this sequence?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-0-77948112defc@linutronix.de?part=10
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-17 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-0-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-4-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:04 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] mailbox: imx: use devm_of_platform_populate() sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-2-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:08 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] mailbox: imx: Add a channel shutdown field sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-1-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:08 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] mailbox: imx: Forward the timeout/ error in imx_mu_generic_tx() sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-6-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:08 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] mailbox: imx: Start splitting the IRQ handler in primary and threaded handler sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-9-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:08 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] mailbox: imx: Don't force-thread the primary handler sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-3-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:08 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] mailbox: imx: Use devm_pm_runtime_enable() sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-5-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:13 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] mailbox: imx: Use channel index instead of zero in imx_mu_specific_rx() sashiko-bot
[not found] ` <20260617-imx_mbox_rproc-v3-10-77948112defc@linutronix.de>
2026-06-17 7:19 ` sashiko-bot [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=20260617071918.F16781F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=Frank.Li@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--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