From: "Théo Lebrun" <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>
To: "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Saravana Kannan" <saravanak@google.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
"Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@perex.cz>,
"Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@suse.com>,
"Binbin Zhou" <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>,
linux-sound@vger.kernel.org,
"Vladimir Kondratiev" <vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com>,
"Grégory Clement" <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Tawfik Bayouk" <tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] driver core: platform: avoid use-after-free on device name
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:26:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D7XHGNJMMUMF.OUL1VHGK5KVM@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2025022019-enigmatic-mace-60ca@gregkh>
On Thu Feb 20, 2025 at 5:19 PM CET, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 04:46:59PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>> On Thu Feb 20, 2025 at 3:06 PM CET, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 02:31:29PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>> >> On Thu Feb 20, 2025 at 1:41 PM CET, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:00:11PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>> >> >> The solution proposed is to add a flag to platform_device that tells if
>> >> >> it is responsible for freeing its name. We can then duplicate the
>> >> >> device name inside of_device_add() instead of copying the pointer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ick.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What is done elsewhere?
>> >> >> - Platform bus code does a copy of the argument name that is stored
>> >> >> alongside the struct platform_device; see platform_device_alloc()[1].
>> >> >> - Other busses duplicate the device name; either through a dynamic
>> >> >> allocation [2] or through an array embedded inside devices [3].
>> >> >> - Some busses don't have a separate name; when they want a name they
>> >> >> take it from the device [4].
>> >> >
>> >> > Really ick.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's do the right thing here and just get rid of the name pointer
>> >> > entirely in struct platform_device please. Isn't that the correct
>> >> > thing that way the driver core logic will work properly for all of this.
>> >>
>> >> I would agree, if it wasn't for this consideration that is found in the
>> >> commit message [0]:
>> >
>> > What, that the of code is broken? Then it should be fixed, why does it
>> > need a pointer to a name at all anyway? It shouldn't be needed there
>> > either.
>>
>> I cannot guess why it originally has a separate pdev->name field.
>
> Many people got this wrong when we designed busses, it's not unique.
> But we should learn from our mistakes where we can :)
>
>> >> > It is important to duplicate! pdev->name must not change to make sure
>> >> > the platform_match() return value is stable over time. If we updated
>> >> > pdev->name alongside dev->name, once a device probes and changes its
>> >> > name then the platform_match() return value would change.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be fine sending a V2 that removes the field *and the fallback* [1],
>> >> but I don't have the full scope in mind to know what would become broken.
>> >>
>> >> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250218-pdev-uaf-v1-2-5ea1a0d3aba0@bootlin.com/
>> >> [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13.3/source/drivers/base/platform.c#L1357
>> >
>> > The fallback will not need to be removed, properly point to the name of
>> > the device and it should work correctly.
>>
>> No, it will not work correctly, as the above quote indicates.
>
> I don't know which quote, sorry.
>
>> Let's assume we remove the field, this situation would be broken:
>> - OF allocates platform devices and gives them names.
>> - A device matches with a driver, which gets probed.
>> - During the probe, driver does a dev_set_name().
>> - Afterwards, the upcoming platform_match() against other drivers are
>> called with another device name.
>>
>> We should be safe as there are guardraids to not probe twice a device,
>> see __driver_probe_device() that checks dev->driver is NULL. But it
>> isn't a situation we should be in.
>
> The fragility of attempting to match a driver to a device purely by a
> name is a very week part of using platform devices.
I never said the opposite, and I agree.
However the mechanism exists and I was focused on not breaking it.
> Why would a driver change the device name? It's been given to the
> driver to "bind to" not to change its name. That shouldn't be ok, fix
> those drivers.
I do get the argument that devices shouldn't change device names. I'll
take the devil's advocate and give at least one argument FOR allowing
changing names: prettier names, especially as device names leak into
userspace through pseudo filesystems.
If we agree that device names shouldn't be changed one a device is
matched with a driver, then (1) we can remove the pdev->name field and
(2) `dev_set_name()` should warn when used too late.
Turn the implicit explicit.
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index 5a1f05198114..3532b068e32d 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -3462,10 +3462,13 @@ static void device_remove_class_symlinks(struct device *dev)
int dev_set_name(struct device *dev, const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list vargs;
int err;
+ if (dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, dev->driver, "device name is static once matched"))
+ return -EPERM;
+
va_start(vargs, fmt);
err = kobject_set_name_vargs(&dev->kobj, fmt, vargs);
va_end(vargs);
return err;
}
(Unsure about the exact error code to return.)
[...]
> Do we have examples today of platform drivers that like to rename
> devices? I did a quick search and couldn't find any in-tree, but I
> might have missed some.
The cover letter expands on the quest for those drivers:
On Tue Feb 18, 2025 at 12:00 PM CET, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> Out of the 37 drivers that deal with platform devices and do a
> dev_set_name() call, only one might be affected. That driver is
> loongson-i2s-plat [0]. All other dev_set_name() calls are on children
> devices created on the spot. The issue was found on downstream kernels
> and we don't have what it takes to test loongson-i2s-plat.
[...]
>
> ⟩ # Finding potential trouble-makers:
> ⟩ git grep -l 'struct platform_device' | xargs grep -l dev_set_name
>
[...]
> [0]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13.2/source/sound/soc/loongson/loongson_i2s_plat.c#L155
[...]
> Or if this really is an issue, let's fix OF to not use the platform bus
> and have it's own bus for stuff like this.
That used to exist! I cannot see how it could be a good idea to
reintroduce the distinction though.
commit eca3930163ba8884060ce9d9ff5ef0d9b7c7b00f
Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Date: Tue Jun 8 07:48:21 2010 -0600
of: Merge of_platform_bus_type with platform_bus_type
Thanks,
--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-20 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-18 11:00 [PATCH 0/2] driver core: platform: avoid use-after-free on device name Théo Lebrun
2025-02-18 11:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] driver core: platform: turn pdev->id_auto into pdev->flags Théo Lebrun
2025-02-18 11:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] driver core: platform: avoid use-after-free on pdev->name Théo Lebrun
2025-02-20 12:41 ` [PATCH 0/2] driver core: platform: avoid use-after-free on device name Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-02-20 13:31 ` Théo Lebrun
2025-02-20 14:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-02-20 15:46 ` Théo Lebrun
2025-02-20 16:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-02-20 18:26 ` Théo Lebrun [this message]
2025-02-20 18:55 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-02-21 8:46 ` Thomas Petazzoni
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=D7XHGNJMMUMF.OUL1VHGK5KVM@bootlin.com \
--to=theo.lebrun@bootlin.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sound@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.com \
--cc=vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com \
--cc=zhoubinbin@loongson.cn \
/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