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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200710002209.6757-1-apronin@chromium.org> <20200710114000.GD2614@linux.intel.com>
 <CAP7wa8LfEtEATbENjr18jTXShT+YmrAoDt4k9FK1SLpxVqViog@mail.gmail.com> <20200714113205.GA1461506@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200714113205.GA1461506@linux.intel.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:48:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABXOdTcAZjG8aQvs+M72CFe9rAdBKZH+6x=C1Ha2aX_w0gXiHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: avoid accessing cleared ops during shutdown
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:32 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:25:44AM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote:
> > > Why does not tpm_del_char_device need this?
> >
> > "Not" is a typo in the sentence above, right? tpm_del_char_device *does*
> > need the fix. When tpm_class_shutdown is called it sets chip->ops to
> > NULL. If tpm_del_char_device is called after that, it doesn't check if
> > chip->ops is NULL (normal kernel API and char device API calls go
> > through tpm_try_get_ops, but tpm_del_char_device doesn't) and proceeds to
> > call tpm2_shutdown(), which tries sending the command and dereferences
> > chip->ops.
>
> It's a typo, yes. Sorry about that.
>
> tpm_class_shutdown() is essentially tail of tpm_del_char_device().
>
> To clean things up, I'd suggest dropping tpm_del_char_device() and
> call tpm_class_shutdown() in tpm_chip_unregisters() along, and open
> coding things that prepend it in tpm_del_char_device().
>

Personally I would have preferred two separate patches, one to fix the
immediate problem (with Cc: stable) and one for the cleanup, but I
guess merging both into one is ok as long as it is marked for stable.

Thanks,
Guenter