在 2020/11/26 17:42, Benjamin Block 写道:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:13:53AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:27:41 +0800
Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
在 2020/11/26 1:06, Benjamin Block 写道:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Qinglang Miao wrote:
kfree(port) is called in put_device(&port->dev) so that following
use would cause use-after-free bug.
The former put_device is redundant for device_unregister contains
put_device already. So just remove it to fix this.
Fixes: 86bdf218a717 ("[SCSI] zfcp: cleanup unit sysfs attribute usage")
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qinglang Miao <miaoqinglang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
index e67bf7388..664b77853 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_unit.c
@@ -255,8 +255,6 @@ int zfcp_unit_remove(struct zfcp_port *port, u64 fcp_lun)
scsi_device_put(sdev);
}
- put_device(&unit->dev);
-
device_unregister(&unit->dev);
>> return 0;
Same as in the other mail for `zfcp_sysfs_port_remove_store()`. We
explicitly get a new ref in `_zfcp_unit_find()`, so we also need to put
that away again.
Sorry, Benjamin, I don't think so, because device_unregister calls
put_device inside.
It seem's that another put_device before or after device_unregister is
useless and even might cause an use-after-free.
The issue here (and in the other patches that I had commented on) is
that the references have different origins. device_register() acquires
a reference, and that reference is given up when you call
device_unregister(). However, the code here grabs an extra reference,
and it of course has to give it up again when it no longer needs it.
This is something that is not that easy to spot by an automated check,
I guess?
Indeed.
I do think the two patches for zfcp have merit, but not by simply
removing the put_device(), but by moving it.
For this patch in particular, I'd think the "proper logic" would be to
move the `put_device()` to after the `device_unregister()`:
device_unregister(&unit->dev);
put_device(&unit->dev);
return 0;
As Cornelia pointed out, the extra `get_device()` we do in
`_zfcp_unit_find()` needs to be reversed, otherwise we have a dangling
reference and probably some sort of memory-/resource-leak.
Let's go by example. If we assume the reference count of `unit->dev` is
R, and the function starts with R = 1 (otherwise the deivce would've
been freed already), we get:
int zfcp_unit_remove(struct zfcp_port *port, u64 fcp_lun)
{
struct zfcp_unit *unit;
struct scsi_device *sdev;
write_lock_irq(&port->unit_list_lock);
// unit->dev (R = 1)
unit = _zfcp_unit_find(port, fcp_lun);
// get_device(&unit->dev)
// unit->dev (R = 2)
if (unit)
list_del(&unit->list);
write_unlock_irq(&port->unit_list_lock);
if (!unit)
return -EINVAL;
sdev = zfcp_unit_sdev(unit);
if (sdev) {
scsi_remove_device(sdev);
scsi_device_put(sdev);
}
// unit->dev (R = 2)
put_device(&unit->dev);
// unit->dev (R = 1)
device_unregister(&unit->dev);
// unit->dev (R = 0)
return 0;
}
If we now apply this patch, we'd end up with R = 1 after
`device_unregister()`, and the device would not be properly removed.
If you still think that's wrong, then you'll need to better explain why.
Hi Banjamin and Cornelia,
Your replies make me reliaze that I've been holding a mistake
understanding of put_device() as well as reference count.
Thanks for you two's patient explanation !!
BTW, should I send a v2 on these two patches to move the position of
put_device()?
