From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066E5C4167B for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233350AbjK0Mlj (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:41:39 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40390 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233192AbjK0Mlh (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:41:37 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF14183; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 04:41:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1701088904; x=1732624904; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=v3n/pRVGJN+BSoahXNcOeH95ditBSNEnKGtGNzh0jZc=; b=PQLoey2QR1ek9PLv/aSSIVIyHyI3HgitEcZfwBcGGSGxU4Ly50Pckrnh myZ+IhQ+MEZiA/lR6XrF05Jg4kEFfTqD2CD1AEDguOoRqTA84e7D/W3TD i2KO1lhdNAJWLk00YllDHROHqk/a9zMqfjjHIqq95c+olPFf00U7eJbCa fjKav0AJ2ohYy/s6T6lzSnTiM5Nf7NH3KGDFXqF+qRWXUWIZEcrLR3mL1 HiY7fSzjQPYqWwCrvsfTLiq/bdYRJOm8QP47a8/FXZKdk8dfNCBjw3nJW Mq9dGS2G5+g2FJjhKIVmNtsExUMumKZJWko2ywy1losnTPv2PDqX0Ke6s A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10906"; a="5883172" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,230,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="5883172" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Nov 2023 04:41:43 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10906"; a="802625987" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,230,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="802625987" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Nov 2023 04:41:39 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1r7avg-0000000HTOL-0Mob; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:41:36 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:41:35 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: George Stark Cc: pavel@ucw.cz, lee@kernel.org, vadimp@nvidia.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "jic23@kernel.org" , kernel@salutedevices.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] devm_led_classdev_register() usage problem Message-ID: References: <20231025130737.2015468-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com> <13cd5524-0d40-4f07-b542-002b79b37533@salutedevices.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13cd5524-0d40-4f07-b542-002b79b37533@salutedevices.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 03:47:41AM +0300, George Stark wrote: > On 11/24/23 18:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:07:29PM +0300, George Stark wrote: > > > Lots of drivers use devm_led_classdev_register() to register their led objects > > > and let the kernel free those leds at the driver's remove stage. > > > It can lead to a problem due to led_classdev_unregister() > > > implementation calls led_set_brightness() to turn off the led. > > > led_set_brightness() may call one of the module's brightness_set callbacks. > > > If that callback uses module's resources allocated without using devm funcs() > > > then those resources will be already freed at module's remove() callback and > > > we may have use-after-free situation. > > > > > > Here is an example: > > > > > > module_probe() > > > { > > > devm_led_classdev_register(module_brightness_set_cb); > > > mutex_init(&mutex); > > > } > > > > > > module_brightness_set_cb() > > > { > > > mutex_lock(&mutex); > > > do_set_brightness(); > > > mutex_unlock(&mutex); > > > } > > > > > > module_remove() > > > { > > > mutex_destroy(&mutex); > > > } > > > > > > at rmmod: > > > module_remove() > > > ->mutex_destroy(&mutex); > > > devres_release_all() > > > ->led_classdev_unregister(); > > > ->led_set_brightness(); > > > ->module_brightness_set_cb(); > > > ->mutex_lock(&mutex); /* use-after-free */ > > > > > > I think it's an architectural issue and should be discussed thoroughly. > > > Some thoughts about fixing it as a start: > > > 1) drivers can use devm_led_classdev_unregister() to explicitly free leds before > > > dependend resources are freed. devm_led_classdev_register() remains being useful > > > to simplify probe implementation. > > > As a proof of concept I examined all drivers from drivers/leds and prepared > > > patches where it's needed. Sometimes it was not as clean as just calling > > > devm_led_classdev_unregister() because several drivers do not track > > > their leds object at all - they can call devm_led_classdev_register() and drop the > > > returned pointer. In that case I used devres group API. > > > > > > Drivers outside drivers/leds should be checked too after discussion. > > > > > > 2) remove led_set_brightness from led_classdev_unregister() and force the drivers > > > to turn leds off at shutdown. May be add check that led's brightness is 0 > > > at led_classdev_unregister() and put a warning to dmesg if it's not. > > > Actually in many cases it doesn't really need to turn off the leds manually one-by-one > > > if driver shutdowns whole led controller. For the last case to disable the warning > > > new flag can be brought in e.g LED_AUTO_OFF_AT_SHUTDOWN (similar to LED_RETAIN_AT_SHUTDOWN). > > > > NAK. > > > > Just fix the drivers by wrapping mutex_destroy() into devm, There are many > > doing so. You may be brave enough to introduce devm_mutex_init() somewhere > > in include/linux/device* > > Just one thing about mutex_destroy(). It seems like there's no single > opinion on should it be called in 100% cases e.g. in remove() paths. > For example in iio subsystem Jonathan suggests it can be dropped in simple > cases: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg73423.html > > So the question is can we just drop mutex_destroy() in module's remove() > callback here if that mutex is needed for devm subsequent callbacks? mutex_destroy() makes sense when debugging mutexes. It's harmless to drop, but will make life harder to one who is trying to debug something there... -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko