Hi Tilman,
On 12/09/2015 03:10 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 09.12.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Paul Bolle:
>
>>> --- a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
>>> @@ -370,19 +370,23 @@ static void gigaset_freecshw(struct cardstate
>>> *cs)
>>> tasklet_kill(&cs->write_tasklet);
>>> if (!cs->hw.ser)
>>> return;
>>> - dev_set_drvdata(&cs->hw.ser->dev.dev, NULL);
>>> platform_device_unregister(&cs->hw.ser->dev);
>>> - kfree(cs->hw.ser);
>>> - cs->hw.ser = NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void gigaset_device_release(struct device *dev)
>>> {
>>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>>> + struct cardstate *cs = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>
>>> /* adapted from platform_device_release() in
>>> drivers/base/platform.c */
>>> kfree(dev->platform_data);
>>> kfree(pdev->resource);
>>> +
>>> + if (!cs)
>>> + return;
>>> + dev_set_drvdata(dev, NULL);
This is of marginal value and (I think) unnecessary; it implies
the core will use the device after release, which would trigger
many problems if true.
>> dev equals cs->hw.ser->dev.dev, doesn't it?
>
> Correct.
>
>> So what does setting
>> cs->hw.ser->dev.dev.driver_data to NULL just before freeing it buy us?
>
> We're freeing cs->hw.ser, not cs->hw.ser->dev.
> Clearing the reference to cs from the device structure before freeing cs
> guards against possible use-after-free.
>
>>> + kfree(cs->hw.ser);
>>> + cs->hw.ser = NULL;
This pattern is common, and defends against much more common
driver bugs.
Unfortunately, much of the good this pattern is intended to do in finding
use-after-free bugs is undone by explicit tests for null everywhere else.
Not saying that's the case here; rather, generally speaking.
Like the
if (!tty && !tty->ops && ....)
code.
Better just to let it crash.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
>> I might be missing something, but what does setting this to NULL buy us
>> here?
>
> Just defensive programming. Guarding against possible use-after-free or
> double-free.
>
>>
>> (I realize that I'm asking questions to code that isn't actually new but
>> only moved around, but I think that's still an opportunity to have
>> another look at that code.)
>
> I'm a big fan of one change per patch. If we also want to modify the
> moved code then that should be done in a separate patch. It makes
> bisecting so much easier. Same reason why I separated out patch 3/3. And
> btw same reason why I think patch 1/3 should go in as-is, as an obvious
> fix to commit f34d7a5b, and any concerns about whether those tests are
> useful should be addressed by a separate patch.
>
> Regards,
> Tilman
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
