On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:11 PM Fu Zixuan <r33s3n6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:50 PM Mathias Nyman
> <mathias.nyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 21.4.2022 15.21, Fu Zixuan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 20:06, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 07:55:28PM +0800, Fu Zixuan wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 18:07, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 05:42:36PM +0800, Zixuan Fu wrote:
> > >>>>> In xhci_create_rhub_port_array(), when rhub->num_ports is zero,
> > >>>>> rhub->ports would not be set; when kcalloc_node() fails, rhub->ports
> > >>>>> would be set to NULL. In these two cases, xhci_create_rhub_port_array()
> > >>>>> just returns void, and thus its callers are unaware of the error.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Then rhub->ports is dereferenced in xhci_usb3_hub_descriptor() or
> > >>>>> xhci_usb2_hub_descriptor().
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To fix the bug, xhci_setup_port_arrays() should return an integer to
> > >>>>> indicate a possible error, and its callers should handle the error.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Here is the log when this bug occurred in our fault-injection testing:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [ 24.001309] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>> [ 24.003992] RIP: 0010:xhci_hub_control+0x3f5/0x60d0 [xhci_hcd]
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>> [ 24.009803] Call Trace:
> > >>>>> [ 24.010014] <TASK>
> > >>>>> [ 24.011310] usb_hcd_submit_urb+0x1233/0x1fd0
> > >>>>> [ 24.017071] usb_start_wait_urb+0x115/0x310
> > >>>>> [ 24.017641] usb_control_msg+0x28a/0x450
> > >>>>> [ 24.019046] hub_probe+0xb16/0x2320
> > >>>>> [ 24.019757] usb_probe_interface+0x4f1/0x930
> > >>>>> [ 24.019765] really_probe+0x33d/0x970
> > >>>>> [ 24.019768] __driver_probe_device+0x157/0x210
> > >>>>> [ 24.019772] driver_probe_device+0x4f/0x340
> > >>>>> [ 24.019775] __device_attach_driver+0x2ee/0x3a0
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <oslab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Zixuan Fu <r33s3n6@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> > >>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
> > >>>>> index bbb27ee2c6a3..024515346c39 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
> > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
> > >>>>> @@ -2235,7 +2235,7 @@ static void xhci_add_in_port(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, unsigned int num_ports,
> > >>>>> /* FIXME: Should we disable ports not in the Extended Capabilities? */
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -static void xhci_create_rhub_port_array(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
> > >>>>> +static int xhci_create_rhub_port_array(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
> > >>>>> struct xhci_hub *rhub, gfp_t flags)
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>> int port_index = 0;
> > >>>>> @@ -2243,11 +2243,11 @@ static void xhci_create_rhub_port_array(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
> > >>>>> struct device *dev = xhci_to_hcd(xhci)->self.sysdev;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> if (!rhub->num_ports)
> > >>>>> - return;
> > >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> > >>>>> rhub->ports = kcalloc_node(rhub->num_ports, sizeof(*rhub->ports),
> > >>>>> flags, dev_to_node(dev));
> > >>>>> if (!rhub->ports)
> > >>>>> - return;
> > >>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> for (i = 0; i < HCS_MAX_PORTS(xhci->hcs_params1); i++) {
> > >>>>> if (xhci->hw_ports[i].rhub != rhub ||
> > >>>>> @@ -2259,6 +2259,7 @@ static void xhci_create_rhub_port_array(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
> > >>>>> if (port_index == rhub->num_ports)
> > >>>>> break;
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>> + return 0;
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> /*
> > >>>>> @@ -2277,6 +2278,7 @@ static int xhci_setup_port_arrays(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, gfp_t flags)
> > >>>>> int cap_count = 0;
> > >>>>> u32 cap_start;
> > >>>>> struct device *dev = xhci_to_hcd(xhci)->self.sysdev;
> > >>>>> + int ret;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> num_ports = HCS_MAX_PORTS(xhci->hcs_params1);
> > >>>>> xhci->hw_ports = kcalloc_node(num_ports, sizeof(*xhci->hw_ports),
> > >>>>> @@ -2367,8 +2369,13 @@ static int xhci_setup_port_arrays(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, gfp_t flags)
> > >>>>> * Not sure how the USB core will handle a hub with no ports...
> > >>>>> */
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - xhci_create_rhub_port_array(xhci, &xhci->usb2_rhub, flags);
> > >>>>> - xhci_create_rhub_port_array(xhci, &xhci->usb3_rhub, flags);
> > >>>>> + ret = xhci_create_rhub_port_array(xhci, &xhci->usb2_rhub, flags);
> > >>>>> + if (ret)
> > >>>>> + return ret;
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + ret = xhci_create_rhub_port_array(xhci, &xhci->usb3_rhub, flags);
> > >>>>> + if (ret)
> > >>>>> + return ret;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What about the memory allocated by the first call to
> > >>>> xhci_create_rhub_port_array()? Is that now lost? Same for everything
> > >>>> else allocated before these calls, how is that cleaned up properly?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> thanks,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> greg k-h
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for your swift reply. We understand your concern. In fact, we have
> > >>> checked the related code carefully and found that xhci_create_rhub_port_array()
> > >>> is only used in xhci_setup_port_arrays(). Moreover, only xhci_mem_init() calls
> > >>> xhci_setup_port_arrays() and does all cleanup work when it fails. Specifically,
> > >>> xhci_mem_init() calls xhci_mem_cleanup(), which eventually called
> > >>> kfree(xhci->usb2_rhub.ports) and kfree(xhci->usb3_rhub.ports).
> > >>
> > >> Great, can you mention this in the changelog text to show that you have
> > >> thought this through and it can be documented as such?
> > >>
> > >> thanks,
> > >>
> > >> greg k-h
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply! We will do that and submit the patch v2 soon.
> > >
> >
> > Good to get this fixed, but there's a series by Heiner Kallweit that adds support
> > for xHC controllers with just one roothub [1].
> > It will conflict with this.
> >
> > We might need to change this a bit so that this can go to stable alone, but still
> > being being able to somewhat neatly apply that new series on top of this.
> >
> > 1. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/log/?h=for-usb-next
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Mathias
>
> No problem! We will submit our patch on that branch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zixuan Fu
I'm sorry that I misunderstand what you meant. I have checked the code
on that branch
and found related code has been removed. Thus we decide to submit our patch to
stable branch.
Thanks,
Zixuan Fu
