On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Johan Hovold <jhovold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:44:30PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Johan Hovold <jhovold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Do not close protocol driver until device has been unregistered.
>> >
>> > This fixes a race between tty_close and hci_dev_open which can result in
>> > a NULL-pointer dereference.
>> >
>> > The line discipline closes the protocol driver while we may still have
>> > hci_dev_open sleeping on the req_lock mutex resulting in a NULL-pointer
>> > dereference when lock is acquired and hci_init_req called.
>
> [...]
>
>> > diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
>> > index 0711448..6946081 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/hci_ldisc.c
>> > @@ -310,11 +310,11 @@ static void hci_uart_tty_close(struct tty_struct *tty)
>> > hci_uart_close(hdev);
>> >
>> > if (test_and_clear_bit(HCI_UART_PROTO_SET, &hu->flags)) {
>> > - hu->proto->close(hu);
>> > if (hdev) {
>> > hci_unregister_dev(hdev);
>> > hci_free_dev(hdev);
>> > }
>> > + hu->proto->close(hu);
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>>
>> I can confirm this. hci_uart_set_proto() opens the proto before it
>> registers the hci device. Hence, we should also unregister the hci
>> device before closing the proto. I also looked whether this introduces
>> other race conditions but no proto-callback can be called here as they
>> are all protected by the tty-layer which synchronizes all
>> tty-callbacks. Therefore, I think this is the correct fix.
>>
>> We can apply this to stable even without the "destruct"-fixes from me
>> as hu->proto->$cb$() doesn't care whether hdev is valid or not. I
>> don't think the destruct-fixes are important enough to send them to
>> stable.
>
> Unfortunately hu is is not valid once hci_unregister returns as it will
> call the destruct callback. So my patch depends on changing this
> behaviour first. (I could also store a pointer to the protocol before
> calling unregister in my patch.)
Right, I missed that, sorry.
> Secondly, I must disagree with you regarding whether the memory leak you
> found is critical enough to be added to the stable trees. We're leaking
> kernel memory in a deterministic and easily triggered way which could be
> exploited by a malicious user.
Are you planning on sending a patch to stable-ML or should I do so? How about
my proposal in the other mail? Could you include this fix when resending this?
>> Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Johan
Regards
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
