From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Gui-Dong Han <hanguidong02@gmail.com>
Cc: rafael@kernel.org, dakr@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
baijiaju1990@gmail.com, Qiu-ji Chen <chenqiuji666@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: fix use-after-free of driver_override via driver_match_device()
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:39:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025112655-ardently-abreast-23c7@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251126113006.9925-1-hanguidong02@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 07:30:06PM +0800, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> driver_set_override() modifies and frees dev->driver_override while
> holding device_lock(dev). However, driver_match_device() reads
> dev->driver_override when calling bus match functions.
>
> Currently, driver_match_device() is called from three sites. One site
> (__device_attach_driver) holds device_lock(dev), but the other two
> (bind_store and __driver_attach) do not. This allows a concurrent
> driver_set_override() to free the string while driver_match_device() is
> using it, leading to a use-after-free (UAF).
>
> This issue affects at least 11 bus types (including PCI, AMBA, Platform)
> that rely on driver_override for matching.
>
> Fix this by holding device_lock(dev) around the driver_match_device() calls
> in bind_store() and __driver_attach(). This ensures all access to
> dev->driver_override via driver_match_device() is protected by the device
> lock.
>
> Tested with the PoCs from Bugzilla that trigger this UAF. Stress testing
> the two newly locked paths for 24 hours with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP enabled showed no UAF recurrence and no lockdep
> warnings.
>
> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220789
> Suggested-by: Qiu-ji Chen <chenqiuji666@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gui-Dong Han <hanguidong02@gmail.com>
> ---
> The Bugzilla entry contains full KASAN reports and two PoCs that reliably
> reproduce the UAF on both unlocked paths using a standard QEMU setup
> (default e1000 device at 0000:00:03.0).
> I chose to fix this in the driver core for the following reasons:
> 1. Both racing functions are part of the driver core.
> 2. Fixing this per-driver/per-bus is tedious and would require careful
> ad-hoc locking that does not align with the existing device_lock(dev).
> 3. We cannot simply add device_lock(dev) inside bus match functions because
> one call path (__device_attach_driver) already holds this lock. Adding the
> lock inside the match callback would cause a deadlock on that path.
> ---
> drivers/base/bus.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> drivers/base/dd.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/bus.c b/drivers/base/bus.c
> index 5e75e1bce551..9e62d6009058 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/bus.c
> @@ -261,13 +261,20 @@ static ssize_t bind_store(struct device_driver *drv, const char *buf,
> const struct bus_type *bus = bus_get(drv->bus);
> struct device *dev;
> int err = -ENODEV;
> + int ret;
>
> dev = bus_find_device_by_name(bus, NULL, buf);
> - if (dev && driver_match_device(drv, dev)) {
> - err = device_driver_attach(drv, dev);
> - if (!err) {
> - /* success */
> - err = count;
> + if (dev) {
> + /* Protects against driver_set_override() races */
> + device_lock(dev);
> + ret = driver_match_device(drv, dev);
> + device_unlock(dev);
Why not have driver_match_device() take the lock instead? This way
looks like an "anti-pattern" that we will get wrong over time.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-26 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-26 11:30 Gui-Dong Han
2025-11-26 11:39 ` Greg KH [this message]
2025-11-26 11:55 ` Gui-Dong Han
2025-11-26 12:28 ` Greg KH
2025-11-26 16:06 ` Gui-Dong Han
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=2025112655-ardently-abreast-23c7@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=chenqiuji666@gmail.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=hanguidong02@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®