Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: qcom: rpmh: Update rpm_msgs offset address and add list_del

[Maulik Shah]

On 2/5/2020 11:51 PM, Evan Green wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:12 PM Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2/5/2020 6:01 AM, Evan Green wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:14 PM Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > rpm_msgs are copied in continuously allocated memory during write_batch.
> > > > Update request pointer to correctly point to designated area for rpm_msgs.
> > > >
> > > > While at this also add missing list_del before freeing rpm_msgs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c | 9 ++++++---
> > > >    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> > > > index c3d6f00..04c7805 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh.c
> > > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ struct cache_req {
> > > >    struct batch_cache_req {
> > > >           struct list_head list;
> > > >           int count;
> > > > -       struct rpmh_request rpm_msgs[];
> > > > +       struct rpmh_request *rpm_msgs;
> > > >    };
> > > >
> > > >    static struct rpmh_ctrlr *get_rpmh_ctrlr(const struct device *dev)
> > > > @@ -327,8 +327,10 @@ static void invalidate_batch(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr)
> > > >           unsigned long flags;
> > > >
> > > >           spin_lock_irqsave(&ctrlr->cache_lock, flags);
> > > > -       list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &ctrlr->batch_cache, list)
> > > > +       list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &ctrlr->batch_cache, list) {
> > > > +               list_del(&req->list);
> > > >                   kfree(req);
> > > > +       }
> > > >           INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctrlr->batch_cache);
> > > Hm, I don't get it. list_for_each_entry_safe ensures you can traverse
> > > the list while freeing it behind you. ctrlr->batch_cache is now a
> > > bogus list, but is re-inited with the lock held. From my reading,
> > > there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the current code. Can you
> > > elaborate on the bug you found?
> > Hi Evan,
> >
> > when we don't do list_del, there might be access to already freed memory.
> > Even after current item free via kfree(req), without list_del, the next
> > and prev item's pointer are still pointing to this freed region.
> > it seem best to call list_del to ensure that before freeing this area,
> > no other item in list refer to this.
> I don't think that's true. the "_safe" part of
> list_for_each_entry_safe ensures that we don't touch the ->next member
> of any node after freeing it. So I don't think there's any case where
> we could touch freed memory. The list_del still seems like needless
> code to me.

Hmm, ok. i can drop list_del.

see the reason below to include list_del.

> > > >           spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctrlr->cache_lock, flags);
> > > >    }
> > > > @@ -377,10 +379,11 @@ int rpmh_write_batch(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
> > > >                   return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > >           req = ptr;
> > > > +       rpm_msgs = ptr + sizeof(*req);
> > > >           compls = ptr + sizeof(*req) + count * sizeof(*rpm_msgs);
> > > >
> > > >           req->count = count;
> > > > -       rpm_msgs = req->rpm_msgs;
> > > > +       req->rpm_msgs = rpm_msgs;
> > > I don't really understand what this is fixing either, can you explain?
> > the continous memory allocated via below is for 3 items,
> >
> > ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*req) + count * (sizeof(req->rpm_msgs[0]) +
> > sizeof(*compls)), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >
> > 1. batch_cache_req,  followed by
> > 2. total count of rpmh_request,  followed by
> > 3. total count of compls
> >
> > current code starts using (3) compls from proper offset in memory
> >           compls = ptr + sizeof(*req) + count * sizeof(*rpm_msgs);
> >
> > however for (2) rpmh_request it does
> >
> >           rpm_msgs = req->rpm_msgs;
> >
> > because of this it starts 8 byte before its designated area and overlaps
> > with (1) batch_cache_req struct's last entry.
> > this patch corrects it via below to ensure rpmh_request uses correct
> > start address in memory.
> >
> >           rpm_msgs = ptr + sizeof(*req);
> I don't follow that either. The empty array declaration (or the
> GCC-specific version of it would be  "struct rpmh_request
> rpm_msgs[0];") is a flexible array member, meaning the member itself
> doesn't take up any space in the struct. So, for instance, it holds
> true that &(req->rpm_msgs[0]) == (req + 1). By my reading the existing
> code is correct, and your patch just adds a needless pointer
> indirection. Check out this wikipedia entry:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
Thanks Evan,

Agree that code works even without this.

However from the same wiki,

>>It is common to allocate sizeof(struct) + array_len*sizeof(array 
element) bytes.

>>This is not wrong, however it may allocate a few more bytes than 
necessary:

this is what i wanted to convery above, currently it allocated 8 more 
bytes than necessary.

The reason for the change was one use after free reported in rpmh driver.

After including this change, we have not seen this reported again.

I can drop this change in new revision if we don't want it.

Thanks,

Maulik

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation