lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel/resource: Invalid memory access in __release_resource
Hi Bjorn!

Thanks for your promtly response.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
> [+cc Grant (author of ac80a51e2ce5)]
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:22:52PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
>>
>> If of_platform_depopulate is called later, resource->parent is
>> accessed (Offset 0x30 of address 0), causing a kernel error.
>
> Interesting; how'd you find this? It looks like the
> of_platform_depopulate() code has been this way for a long time, so we
> must be doing something new that makes us trip over this now. More
> analysis below...

I have an out of tree driver that dynamically adds devices to the device tree.

It was developed before the dynamic_of and dt_overlays existed. Now I
am porting my code to the new interfaces available. I am trying to do
it small steps.

First step was being able to depopulate a previously loaded device
tree. Old, code was calling of_platform_populate, so calling
of_platform_depopulate looked like the right choice. Unfortunately
everything crashed, and it turned out that this was the issue.

On my defense I would say, that the plan is to make this driver
public, once the hardware is stabilized and sold to the public.

>> @@ -237,6 +237,9 @@ static int __release_resource(struct resource *old)
>> {
>> struct resource *tmp, **p;
>>
>> + if (!old->parent)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> This path has been fine for a long time without testing for a NULL
> pointer, so I suspect this change papers over an issue that would be
> better fixed elsewhere.
>

This code is pretty tested, but dynamic remove is not.

> From reading drivers/base/platform.c, it looks like the intent is
> that platform device users would use these interfaces:


I can take a look to modify OF to use insert_resource(), but I still
think that no matter what, we should add this extra check, like the
propossed patch or maybe with a BUG_ON()....


Lets see what Grant thinks about this.


Thanks again!



--
Ricardo Ribalda


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-20 22:41    [W:0.057 / U:2.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site