[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] udc: Memory leak on error path and use after free

Sorry for delayed reply.

On 16.08.2017 19:35, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Anton Vasilyev wrote:
>> On 16.08.2017 18:29, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Anton Vasilyev wrote:
>>>> gadget_release() is responsible for cleanup dev memory.
>>>> But if net2280_probe() fails after dev allocation, then
>>>> gadget_release() become unregistered and dev memory leaks.
>>> This isn't needed if usb_add_gadget_udc_release() is fixed, right?
>> No, this situation could appear before call
>> usb_add_gadget_udc_release().
>>>> Also net2280_remove() calls usb_del_gadget_udc() which
>>>> perform schedule_delayed_work() with gadget_release(), so
>>>> it is possible that dev will be deallocated exactly after
>>>> this call and leads to use after free.
>>> Where is there a possible use after free?
>> net2280_remove() continue work with struct net2280 *dev after call
>> usb_del_gadget_udc(&dev->gadget), but this net2280 *dev could be
>> deallocated by gadget_release()
>>>> The patch moves deallocation from gadget_release() to
>>>> net2280_remove().
>>> Alan Stern
> Okay, now I understand what you were saying. Yes, I agree, the
> existing code isn't right.
> But a better solution would be to move the usb_del_gadget_udc() call
> from the beginning of net2280_remove() to the end. And make the call
> conditional, depending on whether usb_add_gadget_udc_release() has
> already been called successfully.

If allow gadget_release() to deallocate net2280 *dev then it will be
called on fail of usb_add_gadget_udc_release() and it will be unsafe to
perform clean-up.
My point is that gadget shouldn't deallocate its parent memory at all.

> The point is that the device core does not allow drivers to deallocate
> memory containing a struct device before the ->release callback has
> been invoked. Your patch might do that, if the release was delayed for
> some reason.

I don't see possibility for parent device to be removed before its child
was released. Please point if I'm wrong.

Alternative way to move allocation under devm interface.

> Alan Stern

Anton Vasilyev
Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-22 17:46    [W:0.050 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site