lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] fbdev: Check in file_fb_info() if the fb_info was already been freed
From
Hello Thomas,

On 5/2/22 15:26, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 02.05.22 um 15:09 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
>> If real driver probes, the fbdev core kicks out all drivers that are using
>> a framebuffer that were provided by the system firmware. But it could be a
>> user-space process still has a file descriptor for the fbdev device node.
>>
>> This can lead to a NULL pointer dereference, if the framebuffer device is
>> unregistered and associated data freed, but later in the .release callback
>> is attempted to access its struct fb_info.
>>
>> To prevent this, make file_fb_info() to also check the fb_info reference
>> counter and just return NULL if this equals zero. Since that means it has
>> already been freed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>> index 84427470367b..20d8929df79f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c
>> @@ -751,8 +751,13 @@ static struct fb_info *file_fb_info(struct file *file)
>> int fbidx = iminor(inode);
>> struct fb_info *info = registered_fb[fbidx];
>>
>> - if (info != file->private_data)
>> - info = NULL;
>> + if (!info)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + /* check that the fb_info has not changed or was already freed */
>> + if (info != file->private_data || refcount_read(&info->count) == 0)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
>
> However, I'm having problems with the semantics of these variables: if
> we have an info from registered_fb[fbinx] and the refcount in
> info->count is still 0, isn't that a consistency problem? If so, we
> should print a WARN_ON().
>

That's a good point. Maybe we are being too paranoid here? If the fb_info
was set to NULL then the existing if (info != file->private_data) check
will already catch that issue.

In other words, now that fb_release() is getting the fb_info with the
file_fb_info() function instead of file->private_data directly, the NULL
pointer dereference should not happen anymore.

I think that will just drop this patch, the less we touch the fbdev code
the better IMO.

--
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-02 15:37    [W:27.427 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site