diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'queue-6.15/rust-devres-fix-race-in-devres-drop.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | queue-6.15/rust-devres-fix-race-in-devres-drop.patch | 210 |
1 files changed, 210 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/queue-6.15/rust-devres-fix-race-in-devres-drop.patch b/queue-6.15/rust-devres-fix-race-in-devres-drop.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..dfc4b7bd54 --- /dev/null +++ b/queue-6.15/rust-devres-fix-race-in-devres-drop.patch @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ +From 2ae36e7b63e3826ac02a631f6b209b7fbe13cda5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> +Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:17:15 +0200 +Subject: rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() + +From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> + +[ Upstream commit f744201c6159fc7323c40936fd079525f7063598 ] + +In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the +wrapped device resource. + +The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when +the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the +corresponding device being bound to a driver. + +However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 +("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been +(partially) present from the initial version on. + +In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and +subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. +However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device +resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the +corresponding device. + +If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that +the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running +concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking +the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If +Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of +the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done +unbinding the corresponding device. + +CPU0 CPU1 +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { + self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { + is_available.swap() == true + is_available.swap == false + } + } + + // [...] + // device fully unbound + drop_in_place() { + // release device resource + } + } +} + +Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to +user-after-free bugs. + +In order to fix this, implement the following logic. + +In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the +device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. + +If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), +concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for +Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. + +Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of +Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually +racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started +revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means +that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we +just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not +be any additional overhead from that. + +(Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for +us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by +Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement +the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the +atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a +single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) + +In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* +successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. + +Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, +means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked +by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. + +If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres +callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device +resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. + +This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point +of time, which is one of the design goals. + +Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") +Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> +Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ +Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> +Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org +Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> +Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> +--- + rust/kernel/devres.rs | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- + 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/rust/kernel/devres.rs b/rust/kernel/devres.rs +index ddb1ce4a78d94..f3a4e3383b8d2 100644 +--- a/rust/kernel/devres.rs ++++ b/rust/kernel/devres.rs +@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ + ffi::c_void, + prelude::*, + revocable::Revocable, +- sync::Arc, ++ sync::{Arc, Completion}, + types::ARef, + }; + +@@ -25,13 +25,17 @@ struct DevresInner<T> { + callback: unsafe extern "C" fn(*mut c_void), + #[pin] + data: Revocable<T>, ++ #[pin] ++ revoke: Completion, + } + + /// This abstraction is meant to be used by subsystems to containerize [`Device`] bound resources to + /// manage their lifetime. + /// + /// [`Device`] bound resources should be freed when either the resource goes out of scope or the +-/// [`Device`] is unbound respectively, depending on what happens first. ++/// [`Device`] is unbound respectively, depending on what happens first. In any case, it is always ++/// guaranteed that revoking the device resource is completed before the corresponding [`Device`] ++/// is unbound. + /// + /// To achieve that [`Devres`] registers a devres callback on creation, which is called once the + /// [`Device`] is unbound, revoking access to the encapsulated resource (see also [`Revocable`]). +@@ -105,6 +109,7 @@ fn new(dev: &Device, data: T, flags: Flags) -> Result<Arc<DevresInner<T>>> { + dev: dev.into(), + callback: Self::devres_callback, + data <- Revocable::new(data), ++ revoke <- Completion::new(), + }), + flags, + )?; +@@ -133,26 +138,28 @@ fn as_ptr(&self) -> *const Self { + self as _ + } + +- fn remove_action(this: &Arc<Self>) { ++ fn remove_action(this: &Arc<Self>) -> bool { + // SAFETY: + // - `self.inner.dev` is a valid `Device`, + // - the `action` and `data` pointers are the exact same ones as given to devm_add_action() + // previously, + // - `self` is always valid, even if the action has been released already. +- let ret = unsafe { ++ let success = unsafe { + bindings::devm_remove_action_nowarn( + this.dev.as_raw(), + Some(this.callback), + this.as_ptr() as _, + ) +- }; ++ } == 0; + +- if ret == 0 { ++ if success { + // SAFETY: We leaked an `Arc` reference to devm_add_action() in `DevresInner::new`; if + // devm_remove_action_nowarn() was successful we can (and have to) claim back ownership + // of this reference. + let _ = unsafe { Arc::from_raw(this.as_ptr()) }; + } ++ ++ success + } + + #[allow(clippy::missing_safety_doc)] +@@ -164,7 +171,12 @@ fn remove_action(this: &Arc<Self>) { + // `DevresInner::new`. + let inner = unsafe { Arc::from_raw(ptr) }; + +- inner.data.revoke(); ++ if !inner.data.revoke() { ++ // If `revoke()` returns false, it means that `Devres::drop` already started revoking ++ // `inner.data` for us. Hence we have to wait until `Devres::drop()` signals that it ++ // completed revoking `inner.data`. ++ inner.revoke.wait_for_completion(); ++ } + } + } + +@@ -196,6 +208,15 @@ fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target { + + impl<T> Drop for Devres<T> { + fn drop(&mut self) { +- DevresInner::remove_action(&self.0); ++ // SAFETY: When `drop` runs, it is guaranteed that nobody is accessing the revocable data ++ // anymore, hence it is safe not to wait for the grace period to finish. ++ if unsafe { self.revoke_nosync() } { ++ // We revoked `self.0.data` before the devres action did, hence try to remove it. ++ if !DevresInner::remove_action(&self.0) { ++ // We could not remove the devres action, which means that it now runs concurrently, ++ // hence signal that `self.0.data` has been revoked successfully. ++ self.0.revoke.complete_all(); ++ } ++ } + } + } +-- +2.39.5 + |