Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 14:35:04 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Prashanth K <quic_prashk@quicinc.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        John Keeping <john@metanate.com>,
        Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@quicinc.com>,
        Pratham Pratap <quic_ppratap@quicinc.com>,
        Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@gmail.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        Udipto Goswami <quic_ugoswami@quicinc.com>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "# 5 . 15" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: usb: f_fs: Fix CFI failure in ki_complete
Message-ID: <Y5cuCMhFIaKraUyi@kroah.com>
References: <1670851464-8106-1-git-send-email-quic_prashk@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1670851464-8106-1-git-send-email-quic_prashk@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 06:54:24PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
> Function pointer ki_complete() expects 'long' as its second
> argument, but we pass integer from ffs_user_copy_worker. This
> might cause a CFI failure, as ki_complete is an indirect call
> with mismatched prototype. Fix this by typecasting the second
> argument to long.

"might"?  Does it or not?  If it does, why hasn't this been reported
before?

> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.15

CFI first showed up in 6.1, not 5.15, right?

> Signed-off-by: Prashanth K <quic_prashk@quicinc.com>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> index 73dc10a7..9c26561 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ static void ffs_user_copy_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>  		kthread_unuse_mm(io_data->mm);
>  	}
>  
> -	io_data->kiocb->ki_complete(io_data->kiocb, ret);
> +	io_data->kiocb->ki_complete(io_data->kiocb, (long)ret);

Why just fix up this one instance?  What about ep_user_copy_worker()?
And what about all other calls to ki_complete that are not using a
(long) cast?

This feels wrong, what exactly is the reported error and how come other
kernel calls to this function pointer have not had a problem with CFI?
ceph_aio_complete() would be another example, right?

thanks,

greg k-h