Doubts about Patch "ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe"

Doubts about Patch "ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe"

[Dongliang Mu]

Hi all,

I have some doubts about the patch - "ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a
double free in tpci200_pci_probe".

> In the out_err_bus_register error branch of tpci200_pci_probe,
> tpci200->info->cfg_regs is freed by tpci200_uninstall()->
> tpci200_unregister()->pci_iounmap(..,tpci200->info->cfg_regs)
> in the first time.

From my code review, although pci_iounmap takes
"tpci200->info->cfg_regs" as its 2nd parameter, the implementation of
pci_iounmap may not use this parameter.

 Depending on if CONFIG_PCI defines, the "tpci200->info->cfg_regs" may
not be freed.

#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
/* Destroy a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR (memory or IO) */
struct pci_dev;
extern void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *);
#elif defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP)
struct pci_dev;
static inline void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *addr)
{ }
#endif

> But later, iounmap() is called to free tpci200->info->cfg_regs again.

Even if CONFIG_PCI is undefined, it is possible that
tpci200->info->cfg_regs is not freed at all. Therefore, this patch
would cause memory leak. Take a look at the following code:

void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem * addr)
{
        IO_COND(addr, /* nothing */, iounmap(addr));
}

#define IO_COND(addr, is_pio, is_mmio) do {                     \
        unsigned long port = (unsigned long __force)addr;       \
        if (port >= PIO_RESERVED) {                             \
                is_mmio;                                        \
        } else if (port > PIO_OFFSET) {                         \
                port &= PIO_MASK;                               \
                is_pio;                                         \
        } else                                                  \
                bad_io_access(port, #is_pio );                  \
} while (0)

If I make any mistakes, please let me know.

--
My best regards to you.

     No System Is Safe!
     Dongliang Mu

Re: Doubts about Patch "ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe"

[lyl2019]

Hello Dongliang Mu,

>  Depending on if CONFIG_PCI defines, the "tpci200->info->cfg_regs" may
> not be freed.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> /* Destroy a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR (memory or IO) */
> struct pci_dev;
> extern void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *);
> #elif defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP)
> struct pci_dev;
> static inline void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *addr)
> { }
> #endif

I think only `CONFIG_PCI=n` and `CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP=y` cause pci_iounmap an empty
implementation. Actually, `CONFIG_PCI` is a default option when run `make defconfig`,
pci_iounmap() usually is acted as an extern function.


> Even if CONFIG_PCI is undefined, it is possible that
> tpci200->info->cfg_regs is not freed at all. Therefore, this patch
> would cause memory leak. Take a look at the following code:
> 
> void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem * addr)
> {
>         IO_COND(addr, /* nothing */, iounmap(addr));
> }

Here i am not sure this is the final implementation of pci_iounmap(),
because pci_iounmap() is re-implementated in many architectures.
Even so, i observed there still many call-sites of pci_iounmap() have reset
`the addr = NULL` after calling.
Can you have some ways to determine the actual implementation of 
pci_iounmap in our cases?


> #define IO_COND(addr, is_pio, is_mmio) do {                     \
>         unsigned long port = (unsigned long __force)addr;       \
>         if (port >= PIO_RESERVED) {                             \
>                 is_mmio;                                        \
>         } else if (port > PIO_OFFSET) {                         \
>                 port &= PIO_MASK;                               \
>                 is_pio;                                         \
>         } else                                                  \
>                 bad_io_access(port, #is_pio );                  \
> } while (0)
> 

Although the above codes is actually called, the addr might be freed 
if `port >= PIO_RESERVED` is true. The double free still existed.



If I make any mistakes, please tell me.
Thanks your report.
---
Lv Yunlong

Re: Doubts about Patch "ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe"

[Dongliang Mu]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:38 PM <lyl2019@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Dongliang Mu,
>
> >  Depending on if CONFIG_PCI defines, the "tpci200->info->cfg_regs" may
> > not be freed.
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > /* Destroy a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR (memory or IO) */
> > struct pci_dev;
> > extern void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *);
> > #elif defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP)
> > struct pci_dev;
> > static inline void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *addr)
> > { }
> > #endif
>
> I think only `CONFIG_PCI=n` and `CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP=y` cause pci_iounmap an empty
> implementation. Actually, `CONFIG_PCI` is a default option when run `make defconfig`,
> pci_iounmap() usually is acted as an extern function.

I see. From the discussion with other developers, the usage of this
driver needs to enable CONFIG_PCI. So we may not worry about this
point any more.

>
>
> > Even if CONFIG_PCI is undefined, it is possible that
> > tpci200->info->cfg_regs is not freed at all. Therefore, this patch
> > would cause memory leak. Take a look at the following code:
> >
> > void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem * addr)
> > {
> >         IO_COND(addr, /* nothing */, iounmap(addr));
> > }
>
> Here i am not sure this is the final implementation of pci_iounmap(),
> because pci_iounmap() is re-implementated in many architectures.
> Even so, i observed there still many call-sites of pci_iounmap() have reset
> `the addr = NULL` after calling.
> Can you have some ways to determine the actual implementation of
> pci_iounmap in our cases?

Yeah, that's the problem. I am not highly certain about the
implementation of this function. So if the free is not done, your
previous patch would cause a memory leak.



>
>
> > #define IO_COND(addr, is_pio, is_mmio) do {                     \
> >         unsigned long port = (unsigned long __force)addr;       \
> >         if (port >= PIO_RESERVED) {                             \
> >                 is_mmio;                                        \
> >         } else if (port > PIO_OFFSET) {                         \
> >                 port &= PIO_MASK;                               \
> >                 is_pio;                                         \
> >         } else                                                  \
> >                 bad_io_access(port, #is_pio );                  \
> > } while (0)
> >
>
> Although the above codes is actually called, the addr might be freed
> if `port >= PIO_RESERVED` is true. The double free still existed.

Of course. There exists a path in which the double free occurs.
However, if you directly add this NULL assignment, it will cause a
memory leak in other paths.

I am not suspecting the validation of this patch in defending the
double free. Instead, I agree with this patch, but it may introduce
some other issues, like memory leak.

>
>
>
> If I make any mistakes, please tell me.
> Thanks your report.
> ---
> Lv Yunlong
>
>
>
>