From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=wzyR=PL=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F003C43387
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu,  3 Jan 2019 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFF320883
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu,  3 Jan 2019 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1729301AbfACE0t (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 2 Jan 2019 23:26:49 -0500
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:47006 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726129AbfACE0t (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 2 Jan 2019 23:26:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
        by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x034QTgZ013652;
        Wed, 2 Jan 2019 22:26:31 -0600
Message-ID: <a2aae05948a2c58f512e7393822e0768209069e2.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsi:fsi-sbefifo: Fix possible concurrency
 use-after-free bugs in sbefifo_user_release
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Cc:     joel@jms.id.au, eajames@linux.vnet.ibm.com, andrew@aj.id.au,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:26:28 +1100
In-Reply-To: <fd0a4a0da544908204d8558895d469c6d87b6743.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <20181226135618.12784-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
         <26864.1546421693@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
         <fd0a4a0da544908204d8558895d469c6d87b6743.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.2 (3.30.2-2.fc29) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 14:27 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-01-02 at 09:34 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +	mutex_lock(&user->file_lock);
> > >  	sbefifo_release_command(user);
> > >  	free_page((unsigned long)user->cmd_page);
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&user->file_lock);
> > 
> > It shouldn't be necessary to do the free_page() call inside the locked
> > section.
> 
> True. However, I didn't realize read/write could be concurrent with
> release so we have another problem.
> 
> I assume when release is called, no new read/write can be issued, I am
> correct ? So all we have to protect against is a read/write that has
> started prior to release being called, right ?

Hrm... looking briefly at the vfs, read/write are wrapped in
fdget/fdput, so release shouldn't happen concurrently or am I missing
something here ?

Cheers,
Ben.