On 11/12/10 5:42 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/10 5:45 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/10 6:01 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>>>> Ring buffers are setup for exchanging data between K and U spaces, but
>>>>> they could not survive multiple open operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The registered misc interface is monitored and prevented from multiple
>>>>> opens for fixing the vulnerability.
>>>>>
>>>>> A typo, -BUSY, is also cleaned up.
>>>>>
>>>>> btw, the ring buffers could be setup in a per file manner?
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_tgt_if.c 2010-09-13 07:07:38.000000000 +0800
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_tgt_if.c 2010-11-09 21:42:48.000000000 +0800
>>>>> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int tgt_uspace_send_event(u32 typ
>>>>> if (!ev->hdr.status)
>>>>> tgt_ring_idx_inc(ring);
>>>>> else
>>>>> - err = -BUSY;
>>>>> + err = -EBUSY;
>>>>>
>>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ring->tr_lock, flags);
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -319,20 +319,33 @@ static int tgt_mmap(struct file *filp, s
>>>>> return err;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static unsigned long tgt_open_cnt = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> static int tgt_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + if (tgt_open_cnt)
>>>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>>>> + tgt_open_cnt++;
>>>>
>>>> Since there's no locking, there's still a tiny hole where
>>>> simultaneous opens could succeed. Consider using an atomic.
>>>> Good find and good fix otherwise.
>>>>
>>> Would you please, Joe, show the atomic version?
>>> thanks//Hillf
>>
>> I take it back. There's no good atomic version.
>> The best I came up with was:
>> In open:
>> if (atomic_inc_return(&tgt_open_cnt) != 1)
>> return -EBUSY;
>>
>> Then in release (since its the last close):
>> atomic_set(&tgt_open_cnt, 0);
>>
>> There's still a hole that this might overflow, and I don't see
>> the best way to fix that without test-and-set or compare-and-swap.
>> We can't just decrement it since the last close will clear it.
>
> Great operation, thanks.
> A good lesson already offered by Wilcox, you see Joe, clearing only
> necessary when the final closing.
Yes, I think I took that into account.
>> So the best thing would be to use your
>> version but protect it with the tx_ring.tr_lock.
>> I would rename tgt_open_cnt to just tgt_busy,
>> and make it a u8 since it will be 1 or 0.
>
> But u8 is not native word, and the spin_lock_irq is enough, I think. //Hillf
I don't understand what you mean by native word. u8 is an unsigned char which
is just as natural a data type as an int,
Setting, clearing, and testing a char is just as efficient as an int
on almost all architectures I can think of, although an loading an
unsigned char requires masking on one architecture at least,
so unsigned char can be worse than signed char, but not for comparison
to zero and storing, which is what we're talking about here.
That said, it's not a big deal either way. It's only 3 bytes, and
this isn't a commonly-used module. Silly of me, really.
But, you still need the busy flag even with the lock.
Cheers,
Joe
>> int error = 0;
>>
>> spin_lock_irq(&tx_ring.tr_lock);
>> if (tgt_busy)
>> error = -EBUSY;
>> else {
>> tgt_busy = 1;
>> tx_ring.tr_idx = 0;
>> rx_ring.tr_idx = 0;
>> }
>> spin_unlock_irq(&tx_ring.tr_lock);
>> return error;
>>
>> Then in release:
>> spin_lock_irq(&tx_ring.tr_lock);
>> tgt_busy = 0;
>> spin_unlock_irq(&tx_ring.tr_lock);
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> tx_ring.tr_idx = rx_ring.tr_idx = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> cycle_kernel_lock();
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int tgt_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + tgt_open_cnt--;
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static const struct file_operations tgt_fops = {
>>>>> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>>>>> .open = tgt_open,
>>>>> .poll = tgt_poll,
>>>>> .write = tgt_write,
>>>>> .mmap = tgt_mmap,
>>>>> + .release = tgt_release,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static struct miscdevice tgt_miscdev = {
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
