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:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 16:48:20 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@163.com>,
        <lee@kernel.org>, <linyunsheng@huawei.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
        <edumazet@google.com>, <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
        <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>,
        <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>, <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <hackerzheng666@gmail.com>,
        <1395428693sheep@gmail.com>, <alex000young@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net: ravb: Fix possible UAF bug in ravb_remove
Message-ID: <20230727164820.48c9e685@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <607f4fe4-5a59-39dd-71c2-0cf769b48187@omp.ru>
References: <20230725030026.1664873-1-zyytlz.wz@163.com>
        <20230725201952.2f23bb3b@kernel.org>
        <9cfa70cca3cb1dd20bb2cab70a213e5a4dd28f89.camel@redhat.com>
        <607f4fe4-5a59-39dd-71c2-0cf769b48187@omp.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 21:48:41 +0300 Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> >> Still racy, the carrier can come back up after canceling the work.  
> > 
> > I must admit I don't see how/when this driver sets the carrier on ?!?  
> 
>    The phylib code does it for this MAC driver, see the call tree of
> phy_link_change(), on e.g. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/...
> 
> >> But whatever, this is a non-issue in the first place.  
> > 
> > Do you mean the UaF can't happen? I think that is real.   
> 
>    Looks possible to me, at least now... and anyway, shouldn't we clean up
> after ourselves if we call schedule_work()?However my current impression is
> that cancel_work_sync() should be called from ravb_close(), after calling
> phy_{stop|disconnect}()...
>
> >> The fact that ravb_tx_timeout_work doesn't take any locks seems much
> >> more suspicious.  
> > 
> > Indeed! But that should be a different patch, right?  
> 
>    Yes.
> 
> > Waiting a little more for feedback from renesas.  
> 
>    Renesas historically hasn't shown much interest to reviewing the sh_eth/ravb
> driver patches, so I took that task upon myself. I also happen to be a nominal
> author of this driver... :-)

Simplest fix I can think of is to take a reference on the netdev before
scheduling the work, and then check if it's still registered in the work
itself. Wrap the timeout work in rtnl_lock() to avoid any races there.