On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:05:59PM +0530, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>
> On 2/23/2024 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 09:48:09PM -0800, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
> > > In scenarios of continuous and parallel usage of multiple FFS interfaces
> > > and concurrent adb operations (e.g., adb root, adb reboot), there's a
> > > chance that ffs_epfile_async_io_complete() might be processed after
> > > ffs_epfile_release(). This could lead to a NULL pointer dereference of
> > > ffs when accessing the ffs pointer in ffs_epfile_async_io_complete(), as
> > > ffs is freed as part of ffs_epfile_release(). This epfile release is
> > > part of file operation and is triggered when user space daemons restart
> > > themselves or a reboot is initiated.
> > >
> > > Fix this issue by adding a NULL pointer check for ffs in
> > > ffs_epfile_async_io_complete().
> > >
> > > [ 9981.393115] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000000001e0
> > > [ 9981.402854] Mem abort info:
> > > ...
> > > [ 9981.532540] Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies,
> > > [ 9981.540579] pstate: 204000c5 (nzCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> > > [ 9981.548438] pc : ffs_epfile_async_io_complete+0x38/0x4c
> > > [ 9981.554529] lr : usb_gadget_giveback_request+0x30/0xd0
> > > ...
> > > [ 9981.645057] Call trace:
> > > [ 9981.648282] ffs_epfile_async_io_complete+0x38/0x4c
> > > [ 9981.654004] usb_gadget_giveback_request+0x30/0xd0
> > > [ 9981.659637] dwc3_gadget_endpoint_trbs_complete+0x1a8/0x48c
> > > [ 9981.666074] dwc3_process_event_entry+0x378/0x648
> > > [ 9981.671622] dwc3_process_event_buf+0x6c/0x288
> > > [ 9981.676903] dwc3_thread_interrupt+0x3c/0x68
> > > [ 9981.682003] irq_thread_fn+0x2c/0x8c
> > > [ 9981.686388] irq_thread+0x198/0x2ac
> > > [ 9981.690685] kthread+0x154/0x218
> > > [ 9981.694717] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Selvarasu Ganesan <quic_selvaras@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > What commit id does this fix? Should it go to stable kernels?
>
> Fixes: 2e4c7553cd6f9 ("usb: gadget: f_fs: add aio support"). Yes it's
> required to propagate to stable kernel as well.
Great, when you resend the next version, please include both proper
tags.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> > > index be3851cffb73..d8c8e88628f9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c
> > > @@ -849,7 +849,9 @@ static void ffs_epfile_async_io_complete(struct usb_ep *_ep,
> > > usb_ep_free_request(_ep, req);
> > > INIT_WORK(&io_data->work, ffs_user_copy_worker);
> > > - queue_work(ffs->io_completion_wq, &io_data->work);
> > > +
> > > + if (ffs && ffs->io_completion_wq)
> > > + queue_work(ffs->io_completion_wq, &io_data->work);
> >
> > What happens if ffs->io_compleation_wq goes away right after you test
> > it but before you call queue_work()?
> >
> > Where is the locking here to prevent that?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern about the
> potential race condition with ffs->io_completion_wq. I’m considering
> introducing a lock to protect this section of the code, but I wanted to
> get your opinion on this.
> In the f_fs.c driver, there are pre-existing locks. Would it be suitable to
> utilize these locks, or do you suggest the creation of a new lock
> specifically for ffs->io_completion_wq? We anticipate a performance impact
> if we use the existing lock, as it might be held by different
> threads. What are your thoughts on this?"
Test it out yourself and see what works best!
thanks,
greg k-h
