Hi,
On 27/03/2022 09:27, Xiaomeng Tong wrote:
The bug is here:
rcu_assign_pointer(ar->tx_ampdu_iter,
(struct carl9170_sta_tid *) &ar->tx_ampdu_list);
yeah, so... I know there's currently a big discussion revolving
around LISTs due to incoming the GNU89 to GNU11 switch. I'm not
currently aware that something related to this had updated
INIT_LIST_HEAD + friends. So, please tell me if there is extra
information that has to be considered.
The 'ar->tx_ampdu_iter' is used as a list iterator variable
which point to a structure object containing the list HEAD
(&ar->tx_ampdu_list), not as the HEAD itself.
The only use case of 'ar->tx_ampdu_iter' is as a base pos
for list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu in carl9170_tx_ampdu().
If the iterator variable holds the *wrong* HEAD value here
(has not been modified elsewhere before), this will lead to
an invalid memory access.
Using list_entry_rcu to get the right list iterator variable
and reassign it, to fix this bug.
Note: use 'ar->tx_ampdu_list.next' instead of '&ar->tx_ampdu_list'
to avoid compiler error.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: fe8ee9ad80b28 ("carl9170: mac80211 glue and command interface")
Signed-off-by: Xiaomeng Tong <xiam0nd.tong@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/main.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/main.c
index 49f7ee1c912b..a287937bf666 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/carl9170/main.c
@@ -1756,6 +1756,7 @@ static const struct ieee80211_ops carl9170_ops = {
void *carl9170_alloc(size_t priv_size)
{
+ struct carl9170_sta_tid *tid_info;
struct ieee80211_hw *hw;
struct ar9170 *ar;
struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -1815,8 +1816,9 @@ void *carl9170_alloc(size_t priv_size)
INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&ar->stat_work, carl9170_stat_work);
INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&ar->tx_janitor, carl9170_tx_janitor);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ar->tx_ampdu_list);
- rcu_assign_pointer(ar->tx_ampdu_iter,
- (struct carl9170_sta_tid *) &ar->tx_ampdu_list);
+ tid_info = list_entry_rcu(ar->tx_ampdu_list.next,
+ struct carl9170_sta_tid, list);
+ rcu_assign_pointer(ar->tx_ampdu_iter, tid_info);
I've tested this. I've added the following pr_info that would
print the (raw) pointer of both your new method (your patch)
and the old (current code) one:
pr_info("new:%px\n", list_entry_rcu(ar->tx_ampdu_list.next,struct carl9170_sta_tid, list)); // tid_info
pr_info("old:%px\n", (struct carl9170_sta_tid *) &ar->tx_ampdu_list);
and run it on AR9170 USB Stick
[ 216.547932] usb 2-10: SerialNumber: 12345
[ 216.673629] usb 2-10: reset high-speed USB device number 10 using xhci_hcd
[ 216.853488] new:ffff9394268a38e0
[ 216.853496] old:ffff9394268a38e0
[ 216.858174] usb 2-10: driver API: 1.9.9 2016-02-15 [1-1]
[ 216.858186] usb 2-10: firmware API: 1.9.9 2021-02-05
phew, what a relieve :). Both the new and old pointers are the same.
So, the tx_ampdu_list is empty, as it was just initialized to
(list->next = list->prev = list).
And you are right about the iter being suspeciously bogus. But I think
this is true for both the new and the old way. There is no real
carl9170_sta_tid* tid associated with that empty entry and if some code
would expect a valid carl9170_sta_tid* there, it would certainly cause
crashes&burns.
The carl9170_tx_ampdu() and carl9170_ampdu_gc() code is really
careful though and checks whenever the list is empty or not
before doing any list traversing with the tx_ampdu_iter.
Any thoughts or insights?
Cheers,
Christian
