Re: [PATCH] EDAC/device: Serialize poll_msec updates against device teardown
Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260810032638.GCanlE7p8fVnUCYLEK@fat_crate.local> |
On Sat, Aug 08, 2026 at 11:39:03PM +0100, Jad Keskes wrote: > The poll_msec attribute was writable on interrupt-driven controllers, Controllers? > where the value is meaningless, and a write racing with device removal > could re-arm the polling workqueue after it had been stopped and the > ctl_info freed -- use-after-free. > > Restrict the attribute to controllers that are actually polled: _show() > and _store() now return -EPERM unless the controller is in the > OP_RUNNING_POLL state. > > That check alone is not sufficient against the teardown race: _store() > can pass it and then be preempted by a concurrent del_device() that sets > OP_OFFLINE, stops the workqueue and frees the ctl_info once the store > completes. So re-check the state inside reset_delay_period() > under device_ctls_mutex -- the same lock under which del_device() > updates op_state -- making the check atomic with the re-arm. The mutex > is taken only around the check and re-arm, never across the stop/teardown > path, so it cannot deadlock against other pollers queued on the shared > EDAC workqueue. > > Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> This is not how this tag should be used. Please take the time to read up on the development process before submitting more patches: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html This too: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html Also, how much of this patch has been done with the help of LLM? We have a tag for that - Assisted-by: > Signed-off-by: Jad Keskes <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/edac/edac_device.c | 11 +++++++++++ > drivers/edac/edac_device_sysfs.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c > index 361dc985497b..519d1c6d0930 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c > @@ -392,10 +392,21 @@ static void edac_device_workq_teardown(struct edac_device_ctl_info *edac_dev) > */ > void edac_device_reset_delay_period(struct edac_device_ctl_info *edac_dev, unsigned int msec) > { > + mutex_lock(&device_ctls_mutex); > + > + /* Don't re-arm the workqueue once teardown has begun or when the > + * controller isn't polled; this check must be atomic with the > + * re-arm below so it can't race a concurrent del_device(). > + */ This is not the right comment format. > + if (edac_dev->op_state != OP_RUNNING_POLL) > + goto out; > + > edac_dev->poll_msec = msec; > edac_dev->delay = msecs_to_jiffies(msec); > > edac_mod_work(&edac_dev->work, edac_dev->delay); > +out: > + mutex_unlock(&device_ctls_mutex); > } > > int edac_device_alloc_index(void) > diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_device_sysfs.c b/drivers/edac/edac_device_sysfs.c > index e12122b2f42e..821a80806086 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/edac_device_sysfs.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_device_sysfs.c > @@ -83,6 +83,10 @@ static ssize_t edac_device_ctl_panic_on_ue_store(struct edac_device_ctl_info > static ssize_t edac_device_ctl_poll_msec_show(struct edac_device_ctl_info > *ctl_info, char *data) > { > + /* Interval is only meaningful while running under polling */ An LLM usually slaps meaningless comments like that. > + if (ctl_info->op_state != OP_RUNNING_POLL) > + return -EPERM; > + > return sprintf(data, "%u\n", ctl_info->poll_msec); > } > > @@ -93,6 +97,10 @@ static ssize_t edac_device_ctl_poll_msec_store(struct edac_device_ctl_info > unsigned int value; > int ret; > > + /* Only meaningful when the device is running under polling */ Here too. > + if (ctl_info->op_state != OP_RUNNING_POLL) > + return -EPERM; > + > /* > * Get the value, make sure it is non-zero, must be at least one > * millisecond for the delay period between scans. > -- > 2.55.0 > -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette