Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:36:47 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/22] gpiolib: cdev: fix minor race in GET_LINEINFO_WATCH
Message-ID: <20200625093647.GA18209@sol>
References: <20200623040107.22270-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <20200623040107.22270-11-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdG4r95ZU8G9TfL+jkT63+Gppb8w5TRvAtCR_pAk0o=NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200624155714.GB8622@sol>
 <20200624225803.GA3600@sol>
 <CAHp75VdCGpvoK8RZGwbehOd3eORE+qwFR31ucFxtU4vdc5pvYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200625091307.GA16386@sol>
 <CAHp75VeDOGArs2MxJJRNHbNRsJU4K+KYPY=pF+mgtwbakQf4BQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeDOGArs2MxJJRNHbNRsJU4K+KYPY=pF+mgtwbakQf4BQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:23:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:13 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:44:21AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:58 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:57:14PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > Perhaps you are referring to the case where the copy_to_user fails?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > To be honest I considered that to be so unlikely that I ignored it.
> > > > Is there a relevant failure mode that I'm missing?
> > >
> > > The traditional question for such cases is "what can possibly go wrong?"
> > > I wouldn't underestimate the probability of failure.
> > >
> >
> > The worst case is the watch is enabled and the userspace gets an
> > EFAULT so it thinks it failed.  If userspace retries then they get
> > EBUSY, so userspace accounting gets muddled.
> >
> > We can clear the watch bit if the copy_to_user fails - before
> > returning the EFAULT. Would that be satisfactory?
> 
> Perhaps. I didn't check that scenario.
> 

To be clear I'm suggesting this:

        gpio_desc_to_lineinfo(desc, &lineinfo);
 
-       if (copy_to_user(ip, &lineinfo, sizeof(lineinfo)))
+       if (copy_to_user(ip, &lineinfo, sizeof(lineinfo))) {
+               clear_bit(lineinfo.offset, gcdev->watched_lines);
                return -EFAULT;
+       }

That undoes the set, returning the watch state to what it was before the
call.

Cheers,
Kent.