Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: Fix use-after-free Read in firmware_loading_store

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:46:24PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/15/21 4:28 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 10:38:12AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > However I am seeing the following over and over again in the
> > > log - hence I think it is safer to check the aborted status
> > > in __fw_load_abort().
> > > 
> > > ? __list_del_entry_valid+0xe0/0xf0
> > > [  348.604808][T12994]  __list_del_entry_valid+0xe0/0xf0
> > > [  348.610020][T12994]  firmware_loading_store+0x141/0x650
> > > [  348.615761][T12994]  ? firmware_data_write+0x4e0/0x4e0
> > > [  348.621064][T12994]  ? sysfs_file_ops+0x1c0/0x1c0
> > > [  348.625921][T12994]  dev_attr_store+0x50/0x80
> > > 
> > > Also the fallback logic takes actions based on errors as in
> > > fw_load_sysfs_fallback() that returns -EAGAIN which would
> > > trigger request_firmware() again.
> > > 
> > > Based on all of this I think this fix is needed, if only I can
> > > test for sure.
> > 
> > Shuah, curious if you had read this patch from Anirudh Rayabharam
> > and my response to that v4 patch iteration?
> > 
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210518155921.4181-1-mail@anirudhrb.com
> > 
> 
> Yes. I realized I am trying to fix the same problem we have been
> discussing. :) Sorry for the noise.

No worries, and thanks again for you help!

> Ignore my patch. I will follow the thread.

OK ! I think all we need is just Anirudh to split his patch to
remove the -EAGAIN return value in a separate patch as a first step,
documenting in the commmit log that:

The only motivation on her part with using -EAGAIN on commit
0542ad88fbdd81bb ("firmware loader: Fix _request_firmware_load()
return val for fw load abort") was to distinguish the error from
-ENOMEM, and so there is no real reason in keeping it. Keeping
-ETIMEDOUT is much telling of what the reason for a failure is,
so just use that.

Then his second patch would be simplified without the -EAGAIN
condition.

All I asked was to confirm that the -ETIMEDOUT was indeed propagated.

Anirudh, sorry for the trouble, but can I ask you for a v5 with two
patches as described above?

  Luis