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;
Message-ID: <4280de3f-0866-a904-78bc-5eb759dae248@alu.unizg.hr>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 14:14:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [BUG] [PATCH RFC v1] selftests/firmware: copious kernel memory
 leaks in test_fw_run_batch_request()
Content-Language: en-US, hr
To:     Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
References: <97e284be-5018-9d18-feb2-7ec4b08c06fd@alu.unizg.hr>
 <26fd581a-1b9f-4960-8457-61d725511cee@kili.mountain>
From:   Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr>
In-Reply-To: <26fd581a-1b9f-4960-8457-61d725511cee@kili.mountain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/28/23 12:06, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:23:00AM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>> The leaks are in chunks of 1024 bytes (+ overhead), but so far I could not
>> reproduce w/o root privileges, as tests refuse to run as unprivileged user.
>> (This is not the proof of non-existence of an unprivileged automated exploit
>> that would exhaust the kernel memory at approx. rate 4 MB/hour on our setup.
>>
>> This would mean about 96 MB / day or 3 GB / month (of kernel memory).
> 
> This is firmware testing stuff.  In the real world people aren't going
> to run their test scripts in a loop for days.
> 
> There is no security implications.  This is root only.  Also if the
> user could load firmware then that would be the headline.  Once someone
> is can already load firmware then who cares if they leak 100MB per day?
> 
> It looks like if you call trigger_batched_requests_store() twice in a
> row then it will leak memory.  Definitely test_fw_config->reqs is leaked.
> That's different from what the bug report is complaining about, but the
> point is that there are some obvious leaks.  It looks like you're
> supposed to call trigger_batched_requests_store() in between runs?
> 
> There are other races like config_num_requests_store() should hold the
> mutex over the call to test_dev_config_update_u8() instead of dropping
> and retaking it.

Hi Dan,

Following your insight and advice, I tried to mend this racing condition
like this:

diff --git a/lib/test_firmware.c b/lib/test_firmware.c
index 05ed84c2fc4c..6723c234ccbb 100644
--- a/lib/test_firmware.c
+++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
@@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ static ssize_t test_dev_config_show_int(char *buf, int val)
         return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", val);
  }

+static DEFINE_MUTEX(test_fw_mutex_update);
+
  static int test_dev_config_update_u8(const char *buf, size_t size, u8 *cfg)
  {
         u8 val;
@@ -411,9 +413,9 @@ static int test_dev_config_update_u8(const char *buf, size_t size, u8 *cfg)
         if (ret)
                 return ret;

-       mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
+       mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex_update);
         *(u8 *)cfg = val;
-       mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
+       mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex_update);

         /* Always return full write size even if we didn't consume all */
         return size;
@@ -471,10 +473,10 @@ static ssize_t config_num_requests_store(struct device *dev,
                 mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
                 goto out;
         }
-       mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);

         rc = test_dev_config_update_u8(buf, count,
                                        &test_fw_config->num_requests);
+       mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);

  out:
         return rc;

For the second trigger_batched_requests_store(), probably the desired behaviour
would be to extend the list of test_fw_config->reqs, rather than destroying them
and allocating the new ones?

I am not certain about the desired semantics and where is it documented.

Thank you.

Best regards,

-- 
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu

System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia

"What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast.
... I wonder if it will be friends with me?"