mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sang-Hoon Choi <csh0052@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Changyul Lee <lcy8047@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: rpmsg: close port lookup-to-get race
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:42:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026092327-stew-margin-1e89@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260923001647.1337001-1-csh0052@gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 12:17:41AM +0900, Sang-Hoon Choi wrote:
> rpmsg_tty_install() obtains cport from tty_idr before taking a port
> reference. rpmsg_tty_destruct_port() removes the entry under idr_lock
> and frees cport. If channel removal drops the last reference between
> idr_find() and tty_port_get(), the install path dereferences freed
> memory.
> 
> The first-open path and channel removal can run concurrently.

How?  What causes channel removel?

> tty_mutex
> serializes TTY initialization, but rpmsg_tty_remove() does not take that
> mutex. tty_unregister_device() prevents later opens through cdev_del(),
> but cdev_del() does not wait for an open which has already entered the
> driver. Before rpmsg_tty_install() finishes, the port is not attached to
> the new TTY, so tty_port_tty_hangup() does not close this interval.
> 
> RPMsg channel removal may be initiated asynchronously by the remote
> processor or transport. In the test, the local process only needs
> permission to open the TTY node; channel removal is initiated
> independently.
> 
> I reproduced this with a UML kernel built with KASAN and a synthetic
> RPMsg device using the real rpmsg_tty probe and remove paths. Test-only
> synchronization forces removal after idr_find() and before
> tty_port_get(). The opening process drops to UID 1000 and GID 1000 first.
> The unpatched kernel reports:
> 
>   BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in rpmsg_tty_install
>   Read of size 4 ... by task init/23
>   CPU: 0 UID: 1000 PID: 23
> 
> The allocation stack ends in rpmsg_tty_probe(). The free stack is
> rpmsg_tty_remove() -> tty_port_put() -> rpmsg_tty_destruct_port(), and
> the invalid read is in rpmsg_tty_install().
> 
> Take idr_lock across idr_find() and tty_port_get(). If the entry is gone
> or its reference count has reached zero, fail the installation with
> -ENODEV. With the same forced overlap, the UID 1000 open returns ENODEV
> and KASAN stays quiet.
> 
> The test uses a synthetic transport and deliberately widens the race
> window. It demonstrates the lifetime bug and an unprivileged opener, but
> does not show that an unprivileged user can deliberately cause channel
> removal on every RPMsg platform. I am therefore reporting this as a
> normal lifetime bug.
> 
> Fixes: 7c0408d80579 ("tty: add rpmsg driver")
> Reported-by: Changyul Lee <lcy8047@gmail.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/179000811428.1227592.8003229121862460039.idr-bug-84@gmail.com/
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Sang-Hoon Choi <csh0052@gmail.com>
> ---
> Greg, thanks for the feedback. I went back and reproduced the race under
> KASAN before preparing this patch. I can also provide the test-only
> instrumentation and the complete KASAN log if useful.
> 
>  drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c b/drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c
> index c5fd6d9b3..b2765bae2 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c
> @@ -49,12 +49,19 @@ static int rpmsg_tty_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data, int len, void *p
>  
>  static int rpmsg_tty_install(struct tty_driver *driver, struct tty_struct *tty)
>  {
> -	struct rpmsg_tty_port *cport = idr_find(&tty_idr, tty->index);
> -	struct tty_port *port;
> +	struct rpmsg_tty_port *cport;
> +	struct tty_port *port = NULL;
>  
> -	tty->driver_data = cport;
> +	mutex_lock(&idr_lock);

guard()?

And if this is a "real" issue, that can affect things, why not use the
built-in locking that idr has to resolve this issue in a much faster way
than this mutex?

thanks,

greg k-h

      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-23  9:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-21 16:28 [RFC] tty: rpmsg: possible lookup-to-reference lifetime race Sang-Hoon Choi
2026-09-21 18:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-09-22 15:17   ` [PATCH] tty: rpmsg: close port lookup-to-get race Sang-Hoon Choi
2026-09-23  9:42     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]

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=2026092327-stew-margin-1e89@gregkh \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com \
    --cc=csh0052@gmail.com \
    --cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
    --cc=lcy8047@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-serial@vger.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®