Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752953AbbGHWdf (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:33:35 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:45969 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750814AbbGHWd0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:33:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:33:25 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Jens Wiklander , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Rob Herring , Herbert Xu , valentin.manea@huawei.com, jean-michel.delorme@st.com, emmanuel.michel@st.com, javier@javigon.com, Mark Rutland , Michal Simek Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] tee: generic TEE subsystem Message-ID: <20150708223325.GA5843@kroah.com> References: <1436350592-7732-1-git-send-email-jens.wiklander@linaro.org> <1436350592-7732-4-git-send-email-jens.wiklander@linaro.org> <20150708171026.GA11740@obsidianresearch.com> <20150708211129.GA29824@kroah.com> <20150708222649.GA20068@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150708222649.GA20068@obsidianresearch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3585 Lines: 97 On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 04:26:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:11:29PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > + cdev_init(&teedev->cdev, &tee_fops); > > > > + teedev->cdev.owner = teedesc->owner; > > > > > > This also needs to set teedev->cdev.kobj.parent. > > > I'm guessing: > > > > > > teedev->cdev.kobj.parent = &teedev->dev.kobj; > > > > > > TPM had the same mistake.. > > > > Really? As of a few years ago, A cdev's kobject should not be touched > > by anything other than the cdev core. It's not a "real" kobject in that > > it is never registered in sysfs, and no one sees it. I keep meaning to > > Well, when I looked at it, it looked like it was necessary to maintain > the refcount on the memory that is holding cdev. > > The basic issue is that cdev_del doesn't seem to be synchronizing. > > The use after free race is then something like: > > struct tpm_chip { > struct device dev; > struct cdev cdev; Oops, right there's your problem. You can't have two reference counted objects trying to manage the memory of a single structure. No matter what you do, it's going to be a pain to deal with this, so don't :) > > CPU0 CPU1 > ================= ====================== > tpm_chip = kalloc > cdev_add(&tpm_chip->cdev) > device_add(&tpm_chip->dev) > chrdev_open > filp->f_op->open > cdev_del(&tpm_chip->cdev) > device_unregister > (&tpm_chip->dev) > kfree(tpm_chip) > tpm_chip = container_of > fput > cdev_put(.. cdev) > > Ie we need cdev to hold a ref on tpm_chip->dev until cdev_put is > called. No, separate them, make the cdev a pointer and all should be fine. > > just use something else one of these days for that structure, as lots of > > people get it wrong. Or has things changed there? > > Not recently, but this is the commit: > > commit 2f0157f13f42800aa3d9017ebb0fb80a65f7b2de > Author: Dmitry Torokhov > Date: Sun Oct 21 17:57:19 2012 -0700 > > char_dev: pin parent kobject > > In certain cases (for example when a cdev structure is embedded into > another object whose lifetime is controlled by a separate kobject) it is > beneficial to tie lifetime of another object to the lifetime of > character device so that related object is not freed until after > char_dev object is freed. > > To achieve this let's pin kobject's parent when doing cdev_add() and > unpin when last reference to cdev structure is being released. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov > Acked-by: Al Viro > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds > > It doesn't seem the be the best situation, this is the 3rd time this > week I've noticed cdev with a kalloc'd struct being used improperly. > > Perhaps cdev_init should accept the module and kref parent as an > argument? Oh yeah, that commit :( If you know _exactly_ what you are doing, you can get away with this, but I strongly recommend not doing that. As proof of that, in some new code I'm working on, I did not do this, just because I'm not smart enough to ensure it's all working properly... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/