linux-integrity.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
Cc: peterhuewe@gmx.de, jarkko@kernel.org, stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 22:50:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <db7c90c3-d86a-65c9-81a2-be1527b47e11@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210205155808.GO4718@ziepe.ca>

On 05.02.21 at 16:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
eference in the first place).
>
> No, they are all chained together because they are all in the same
> struct:
>
> struct tpm_chip {
> 	struct device dev;
> 	struct device devs;
> 	struct cdev cdev;
> 	struct cdev cdevs;
>
> dev holds the refcount on memory, when it goes 0 the whole thing is
> kfreed.
>
> The rule is dev's refcount can't go to zero while any other refcount
> is != 0.
>
> For instance devs holds a get on dev that is put back only when devs
> goes to 0:
>
> static void tpm_devs_release(struct device *dev)
> {
> 	struct tpm_chip *chip = container_of(dev, struct tpm_chip, devs);
>
> 	/* release the master device reference */
> 	put_device(&chip->dev);
> }
>
> Both cdev elements do something similar inside the cdev layer.

Well this chaining is exactly what does not work nowadays and what the patch is supposed
to fix: currently we dont ever take the extra ref (not even in TPM 2 case, note that
TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TMP2 is never set), so

-	if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
-		get_device(&chip->dev);
+	get_device(&chip->dev);


and tpm_devs_release() is never called, since there is nothing that ever puts devs, so


+	rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(pdev,
+				      (void (*)(void *)) put_device,
+				      &chip->devs);


The race with only get_device()/putdevice() in tpm_common_open()/tpm_common_release() is:

1. tpm chip is allocated with dev refcount = 1, devs refcount = 1
2. /dev/tpmrm is opened but before we get the ref to dev in tpm_common() another thread
rmmmods the chip driver:
3. the chip is unregistered, dev is put with refcount = 0 and the whole chip struct is freed
3. Now open() proceeds, tries to grab the extra ref chip->dev from a chip that has already
been deallocated and the system crashes.

As I already wrote, that approach was my first thought, too, but since the result crashed due to the
race condition, I chose the approach in patch 1.

Regards,
Lino

> The net result is during any open() the tpm_chip is guarenteed to have
> a positive refcount.
>



  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-05 21:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-04 23:50 [PATCH v3 0/2] TPM fixes Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-04 23:50 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05  0:46   ` Stefan Berger
2021-02-05  1:44     ` Stefan Berger
2021-02-05  2:01       ` James Bottomley
2021-02-05 10:52         ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05 13:29         ` Stefan Berger
2021-02-05 10:34     ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05  6:50   ` Greg KH
2021-02-05 13:05   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-05 14:55     ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05 15:15       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-05 15:50         ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05 15:58           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-05 21:50             ` Lino Sanfilippo [this message]
2021-02-06  0:39               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-04 23:50 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: in tpm2_del_space check if ops pointer is still valid Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05  0:34   ` James Bottomley
2021-02-05  2:18     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-05 16:48       ` James Bottomley
2021-02-05 17:25         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-05 17:54           ` James Bottomley
2021-02-06  1:02             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-06  1:08           ` James Bottomley
2021-02-06  1:34             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-09 11:52           ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-09 13:36             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-09 13:39               ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-12 11:02               ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-12 10:59             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-02-14 17:22               ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05 10:30     ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-03-06 16:07       ` Lino Sanfilippo
2021-02-05  6:51   ` Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=db7c90c3-d86a-65c9-81a2-be1527b47e11@gmx.de \
    --to=linosanfilippo@gmx.de \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).