On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:37 AM Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Alice points out that binder_request_freeze_notification() should not
> return EINVAL when the relevant node is dead [1]. The node can die at
> any point even if the user input is valid. Instead, allow the request
> to be allocated but skip the initial notification for dead nodes. This
> avoids propagating unnecessary errors back to userspace.
>
> Fixes: d579b04a52a1 ("binder: frozen notification")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Suggested-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAH5fLghapZJ4PbbkC8V5A6Zay-_sgTzwVpwqk6RWWUNKKyJC_Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/android/binder.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
> index 73dc6cbc1681..415fc9759249 100644
> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
> @@ -3856,7 +3856,6 @@ binder_request_freeze_notification(struct binder_proc *proc,
> {
> struct binder_ref_freeze *freeze;
> struct binder_ref *ref;
> - bool is_frozen;
>
> freeze = kzalloc(sizeof(*freeze), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!freeze)
> @@ -3872,32 +3871,31 @@ binder_request_freeze_notification(struct binder_proc *proc,
> }
>
> binder_node_lock(ref->node);
> -
> - if (ref->freeze || !ref->node->proc) {
> - binder_user_error("%d:%d invalid BC_REQUEST_FREEZE_NOTIFICATION %s\n",
> - proc->pid, thread->pid,
> - ref->freeze ? "already set" : "dead node");
> + if (ref->freeze) {
> + binder_user_error("%d:%d BC_REQUEST_FREEZE_NOTIFICATION already set\n",
> + proc->pid, thread->pid);
> binder_node_unlock(ref->node);
> binder_proc_unlock(proc);
> kfree(freeze);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> - binder_inner_proc_lock(ref->node->proc);
> - is_frozen = ref->node->proc->is_frozen;
> - binder_inner_proc_unlock(ref->node->proc);
>
> binder_stats_created(BINDER_STAT_FREEZE);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&freeze->work.entry);
> freeze->cookie = handle_cookie->cookie;
> freeze->work.type = BINDER_WORK_FROZEN_BINDER;
> - freeze->is_frozen = is_frozen;
> -
> ref->freeze = freeze;
>
> - binder_inner_proc_lock(proc);
> - binder_enqueue_work_ilocked(&ref->freeze->work, &proc->todo);
> - binder_wakeup_proc_ilocked(proc);
> - binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
> + if (ref->node->proc) {
> + binder_inner_proc_lock(ref->node->proc);
> + freeze->is_frozen = ref->node->proc->is_frozen;
> + binder_inner_proc_unlock(ref->node->proc);
> +
> + binder_inner_proc_lock(proc);
> + binder_enqueue_work_ilocked(&freeze->work, &proc->todo);
> + binder_wakeup_proc_ilocked(proc);
> + binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
This is not a problem with your change ... but, why exactly are we
scheduling the BINDER_WORK_FROZEN_BINDER right after creating it? For
death notications, we only schedule it immediately if the process is
dead. So shouldn't we only schedule it if the process is not frozen?
And if the answer is that frozen notifications are always sent
immediately to notify about the current state, then we should also
send one for a dead process ... maybe. I guess a dead process is not
frozen?
> + }
>
> binder_node_unlock(ref->node);
> binder_proc_unlock(proc);
> --
> 2.46.1.824.gd892dcdcdd-goog
>
