On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 07:38:27PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 08:05:23PM +0800, Jay Fang wrote:
> > > On 2024/8/1 5:46, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 05:57:43PM +0800, Ding Hui wrote:
> > > >> On 2024/7/30 9:16, Jay Fang wrote:
> > > >>> From 'commit 456d8aa37d0f ("PCI/ASPM: Disable ASPM on MFD function removal
> > > >>> to avoid use-after-free")' we know that PCIe spec r6.0, sec 7.5.3.7,
> > > >>> recommends that software program the same ASPM Control(pcie_link_state)
> > > >>> value in all functions of multi-function devices, and free the
> > > >>> pcie_link_state when any child function is removed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, ASPM Control sysfs is still visible to other children even if it
> > > >>> has been removed by any child function, and careless use it will
> > > >>> trigger use-after-free error, e.g.:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> # lspci -tv
> > > >>> -[0000:16]---00.0-[17]--+-00.0 Device 19e5:0222
> > > >>> \-00.1 Device 19e5:0222
> > > >>> # echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:17:00.0/remove // pcie_link_state will be released
> > > >>> # echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:17:00.1/link/l1_aspm // will trigger error
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000030
> > > >>> Call trace:
> > > >>> aspm_attr_store_common.constprop.0+0x10c/0x154
> > > >>> l1_aspm_store+0x24/0x30
> > > >>> dev_attr_store+0x20/0x34
> > > >>> sysfs_kf_write+0x4c/0x5c
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We can solve this problem by updating the ASPM Control sysfs of all
> > > >>> children immediately after ASPM Control have been freed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fixes: 456d8aa37d0f ("PCI/ASPM: Disable ASPM on MFD function removal to avoid use-after-free")
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jay Fang <f.fangjian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 2 ++
> > > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > >>> index cee2365e54b8..eee9e6739924 100644
> > > >>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > >>> @@ -1262,6 +1262,8 @@ void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > >>> pcie_config_aspm_path(parent_link);
> > > >>> }
> > > >>> + pcie_aspm_update_sysfs_visibility(parent);
> > > >>> +
> > > >>
> > > >> To be more rigorous, is there still a race window in
> > > >> aspm_attr_{show,store}_common or clkpm_{show,store} before updating
> > > >> the visibility, we can get an old or NULL pointer by
> > > >> pcie_aspm_get_link()?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I think we still have a problem even with this patch.
> > >
> > > If so, maybe we need a new solution to completely sovle this problem.
> >
> > I think so. The pcie_link_state struct is kind of problematic to
> > begin with. It basically encodes the PCI hierarchy again, even though
> > the hierarchy is already completely described via struct pci_dev.
> >
> > IMO only the ASPM and clock PM state is really new information. I'm
> > not convinced that we even need all of that (how can
> > supported/enabled/capable/default/disabled *all* be useful and
> > understandable?). But even if we *do* need all of that, it's only 39
> > bits of information per device.
>
> Hi all,
>
> To me, the most natural place for the link-related information such as
> ASPM state would be inside struct pci_bus.
Good point, that probably would make sense.
> I actually did already take a look into migrating ASPM data there but the
> way pcie_link_state is currently looked up through pci_dev (from both
> ends of the link) seemed to make the conversion somewhat messy so I
> postponed creating the patch for the migration.
>
> But it's certainly a change I'd like to see if somebody wants to look into
> it.
>
> > > > For one thing, aspm_attr_store_common() captures the pointer from
> > > > pcie_aspm_get_link() before the critical section, so by the time it
> > > > *uses* the pointer, pcie_aspm_exit_link_state() may have freed the
> > > > link state.
> > > >
> > > > And there are several other callers of pcie_aspm_get_link() that
> > > > either call it before a critical section or don't have a critical
> > > > section at all.
> > > >
> > > > I think it may be a mistake to alloc/free the link state separately
> > > > from the pci_dev itself.
> > > >
> > > >>> mutex_unlock(&aspm_lock);
> > > >>> up_read(&pci_bus_sem);
> > > >>> }
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> - Ding Hui
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > >
> >
