[PATCH] uacce: fix concurrency of fops_open and uacce_remove

[Zhangfei Gao]

On 2022/6/17 下午2:05, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/6/16 下午4:14, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:10:18PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
>>>>> index 281c54003edc..b6219c6bfb48 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/uacce/uacce.c
>>>>> @@ -136,9 +136,16 @@ static int uacce_fops_open(struct inode 
>>>>> *inode, struct file *filep)
>>>>>        if (!q)
>>>>>            return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +    mutex_lock(&uacce->queues_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!uacce->parent->driver) {
>>>> I don't think this is useful, because the core clears 
>>>> parent->driver after
>>>> having run uacce_remove():
>>>>
>>>>     rmmod hisi_zip        open()
>>>>      ...                 uacce_fops_open()
>>>>      __device_release_driver()      ...
>>>>       pci_device_remove()
>>>>        hisi_zip_remove()
>>>>         hisi_qm_uninit()
>>>>          uacce_remove()
>>>>           ...              ...
>>>>                        mutex_lock(uacce->queues_lock)
>>>>       ...                  if (!uacce->parent->driver)
>>>>       device_unbind_cleanup()      /* driver still valid, proceed */
>>>>        dev->driver = NULL
>>> The check  if (!uacce->parent->driver) is required, otherwise NULL 
>>> pointer
>>> may happen.
>> I agree we need something, what I mean is that this check is not
>> sufficient.
>>
>>> iommu_sva_bind_device
>>> const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(dev);  ->
>>> dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops
>>>
>>> rmmod has no issue, but remove parent pci device has the issue.
>> Ah right, relying on the return value of bind() wouldn't be enough 
>> even if
>> we mandated SVA.
>>
>> [...]
>>>> I think we need the global uacce_mutex to serialize uacce_remove() and
>>>> uacce_fops_open(). uacce_remove() would do everything, including
>>>> xa_erase(), while holding that mutex. And uacce_fops_open() would 
>>>> try to
>>>> obtain the uacce object from the xarray while holding the mutex, which
>>>> fails if the uacce object is being removed.
>>> Since fops_open get char device refcount, uacce_release will not happen
>>> until open returns.
>> The refcount only ensures that the uacce_device object is not freed as
>> long as there are open fds. But uacce_remove() can run while there are
>> open fds, or fds in the process of being opened. And atfer 
>> uacce_remove()
>> runs, the uacce_device object still exists but is mostly unusable. For
>> example once the module is freed, uacce->ops is not valid anymore. But
>> currently uacce_fops_open() may dereference the ops in this case:
>>
>>     uacce_fops_open()
>>      if (!uacce->parent->driver)
>>      /* Still valid, keep going */
>>      ...                    rmmod
>>                          uacce_remove()
>>      ...                     free_module()
>>      uacce->ops->get_queue() /* BUG */
>
> uacce_remove should wait for uacce->queues_lock, until fops_open 
> release the lock.
> If open happen just after the uacce_remove: unlock, uacce_bind_queue 
> in open should fail.
>
>> Accessing uacce->ops after free_module() is a use-after-free. We need 
>> all
> you men parent release the resources.
>> the fops to synchronize with uacce_remove() to ensure they don't use any
>> resource of the parent after it's been freed.
> After fops_open, currently we are counting on parent driver stop all 
> dma first, then call uacce_remove, which is assumption.
> Like drivers/crypto/hisilicon/zip/zip_main.c: 
> hisi_qm_wait_task_finish, which will wait uacce_release.
> If comments this , there may other issue,
> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 
> ffff80000b700204
> pc : hisi_qm_cache_wb.part.0+0x2c/0xa0
>
>> I see uacce_fops_poll() may have the same problem, and should be inside
>> uacce_mutex.
> Do we need consider this, uacce_remove can happen anytime but not 
> waiting dma stop?
>
> Not sure uacce_mutex can do this.
> Currently the sequence is
> mutex_lock(&uacce->queues_lock);
> mutex_lock(&uacce_mutex);
>
> Or we set all the callbacks of uacce_ops to NULL?
How about in uacce_remove
mutex_lock(&uacce_mutex);
uacce->ops = NULL;
mutex_unlock(&uacce_mutex);

And check uacce->ops  first when using.

Or set all ops of uacce->ops to NULL.

> Module_get/put only works for module, but not for removing device.
>
> Thanks
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jean
>