Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] driver core: Add dma_cleanup callback in bus_type

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:04:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

> 1 - tmp->driver is non-NULL because tmp is already bound.
>   1.a - If tmp->driver->driver_managed_dma == 0, the group must currently be
> DMA-API-owned as a whole. Regardless of what driver dev has unbound from,
> its removal does not release someone else's DMA API (co-)ownership.

This is an uncommon locking pattern, but it does work. It relies on
the mutex being an effective synchronization barrier for an unlocked
store:

				      WRITE_ONCE(dev->driver, NULL)

 mutex_lock(&group->lock)
 READ_ONCE(dev->driver) != NULL and no UAF
 mutex_unlock(&group->lock)

				      mutex_lock(&group->lock)
				      tmp = READ_ONCE(dev1->driver);
				      if (tmp && tmp->blah) [..]
				      mutex_unlock(&group->lock)
 mutex_lock(&group->lock)
 READ_ONCE(dev->driver) == NULL
 mutex_unlock(&group->lock)

				      /* No other CPU can UAF dev->driver */
                                      kfree(driver)

Ie the CPU setting driver cannot pass to the next step without all
other CPUs observing the new value because of the release/acquire built
into the mutex_lock.

It is tricky, and can work in this instance, but the pattern's unlocked
design relies on ordering between the WRITE_ONCE and the locks - and
that ordering in dd.c isn't like that today.

Jason



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux