Hello Sascha,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:07:27AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:48:01PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 11:05:28AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > When an Access Point is repeatedly started it happens that the
> > > > interrupts handler is called with priv->wdev.wiphy being NULL, but
> > > > dereferenced in mwifiex_parse_single_response_buf() resulting in:
> > > >
> > > > | Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000140
> > ...
> > > > | pc : mwifiex_get_cfp+0xd8/0x15c [mwifiex]
> > > > | lr : mwifiex_get_cfp+0x34/0x15c [mwifiex]
> > > > | sp : ffff8000818b3a70
> > > > | x29: ffff8000818b3a70 x28: ffff000006bfd8a5 x27: 0000000000000004
> > > > | x26: 000000000000002c x25: 0000000000001511 x24: 0000000002e86bc9
> > > > | x23: ffff000006bfd996 x22: 0000000000000004 x21: ffff000007bec000
> > > > | x20: 000000000000002c x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000
> > > > | x17: 000000040044ffff x16: 00500072b5503510 x15: ccc283740681e517
> > > > | x14: 0201000101006d15 x13: 0000000002e8ff43 x12: 002c01000000ffb1
> > > > | x11: 0100000000000000 x10: 02e8ff43002c0100 x9 : 0000ffb100100157
> > > > | x8 : ffff000003d20000 x7 : 00000000000002f1 x6 : 00000000ffffe124
> > > > | x5 : 0000000000000001 x4 : 0000000000000003 x3 : 0000000000000000
> > > > | x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0001000000011001 x0 : 0000000000000000
> > > > | Call trace:
> > > > | mwifiex_get_cfp+0xd8/0x15c [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_parse_single_response_buf+0x1d0/0x504 [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_handle_event_ext_scan_report+0x19c/0x2f8 [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_process_sta_event+0x298/0xf0c [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_process_event+0x110/0x238 [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_main_process+0x428/0xa44 [mwifiex]
> > > > | mwifiex_sdio_interrupt+0x64/0x12c [mwifiex_sdio]
> > > > | process_sdio_pending_irqs+0x64/0x1b8
> > > > | sdio_irq_work+0x4c/0x7c
> > > > | process_one_work+0x148/0x2a0
> > > > | worker_thread+0x2fc/0x40c
> > > > | kthread+0x110/0x114
> > > > | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> > > > | Code: a94153f3 a8c37bfd d50323bf d65f03c0 (f940a000)
> > > > | ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by adding a NULL check before dereferencing this pointer.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > This is the most obvious fix for this problem, but I am not sure if we
> > > > might want to catch priv->wdev.wiphy being NULL earlier in the call
> > > > chain.
> > >
> > > I haven't looked at the call but the symptoms sound like that either we
> > > are enabling the interrupts too early or there's some kind of locking
> > > problem so that an other cpu doesn't see the change.
> >
> > I agree with Kalle that there's a different underlying bug involved, and
> > (my conclusion:) we shouldn't whack-a-mole the NULL pointer without
> > addressing the underlying problem.
> >
> > Looking a bit closer (and without much other context to go on): I believe
> > that one potential underlying problem is the complete lack of locking
> > between cfg80211 entry points (such as mwifiex_add_virtual_intf() or
> > mwifiex_cfg80211_change_virtual_intf()) and most stuff in the main loop
> > (mwifiex_main_process()). The former call sites only hold the wiphy
> > lock, and the latter tends to ... mostly not hold any locks, but rely on
> > sequentialization with itself, and using its |main_proc_lock| for setup
> > and teardown. It's all really bad and ready to fall down like a house of
> > cards at any moment. Unfortunately, no one has spent time on
> > rearchitecting this driver.
> >
> > So it's possible that mwifiex_process_event() (mwifiex_get_priv_by_id()
> > / mwifiex_get_priv()) is getting a hold of a not-fully-initialized
> > 'priv' structure.
> >
> > BTW, in case I can reproduce and poke at your scenario, what exactly
> > is your test case? Are you just starting / killing / restarting hostapd
> > in a loop?
>
> I am running plain wpa_supplicant -i mlan0 with this config:
>
> network={
> ssid="somessid"
> mode=2
> frequency=2412
> key_mgmt=WPA-PSK WPA-PSK-SHA256
> proto=RSN
> group=CCMP
> pairwise=CCMP
> psk="12345678"
> }
>
> wait for the AP to be established, <ctrl-c> wpa_supplicant and start it
> again.
>
> It doesn't seem to be a locking problem, see the patch below which fixes
> my problem. At some point during incoming events the correct adapter->priv[]
> is selected based on bss_num and bss_type. when adapter->priv[0] is used
> for AP mode then an incoming event with type MWIFIEX_BSS_TYPE_STA leads
> to adapter->priv[1] being picked which is unused and doesn't have a
> wiphy attached to it.
>
> Sascha
>
> -------------------------8<----------------------------
>
> From 3357963821294ff7de26259a154a1cb5bab760cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:20:20 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mwifiex: Do not return unused priv in
> mwifiex_get_priv_by_id()
>
> mwifiex_get_priv_by_id() returns the priv pointer corresponding to the
> bss_num and bss_type, but without checking if the priv is actually
> currently in use.
> Unused priv pointers do not have a wiphy attached to them which can lead
> to NULL pointer dereferences further down the callstack.
> Fix this by returning only used priv pointers which have priv->bss_mode
> set to something else than NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h
> index 175882485a195..c5164ae41b547 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h
> @@ -1287,6 +1287,9 @@ mwifiex_get_priv_by_id(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter,
>
> for (i = 0; i < adapter->priv_num; i++) {
> if (adapter->priv[i]) {
> + if (adapter->priv[i]->bss_mode == NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED)
> + continue;
> +
> if ((adapter->priv[i]->bss_num == bss_num) &&
> (adapter->priv[i]->bss_type == bss_type))
> break;
The change looks fine to me.
I am just wondering if this might have anything to do with
commit a17b9f590f6e ("wifi: mwifiex: Fix interface type change"), maybe you have already looked into it?
Before that commit a wrong priv pointer was picked (different scenario from what you describe however).
Francesco
