Re: [PATCH 2/2] serdev: use tty_port_tty_get() in ttyport_write_buf() to prevent UAF

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:00:30PM +0000, Markus Probst wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-07-31 at 10:06 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Joshua Rogers <[email protected]>
> > 
> > ttyport_write_buf() snapshots serport->tty as a raw pointer without
> > taking a reference, while ttyport_close() can concurrently release the
> > tty via tty_release_struct(), leading to a use-after-free. Use
> > tty_port_tty_get() to obtain a reference-counted tty pointer, matching
> > the pattern already used by ttyport_write_wakeup().
> > 
> > Assisted-by: AISLE:Snapshot
> > Cc: stable <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Rogers <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c b/drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c
> > index 48ce5b3f8308..4d37c8130dd7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c
> > @@ -85,13 +85,21 @@ static const struct tty_port_client_operations client_ops = {
> >  static ssize_t ttyport_write_buf(struct serdev_controller *ctrl, const u8 *data, size_t len)
> >  {
> >  	struct serport *serport = serdev_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
> > -	struct tty_struct *tty = serport->tty;
> > +	struct tty_struct *tty;
> > +	ssize_t ret;
> >  
> >  	if (!test_bit(SERPORT_ACTIVE, &serport->flags))
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > +	tty = tty_port_tty_get(serport->port);
> > +	if (!tty)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> >  	set_bit(TTY_DO_WRITE_WAKEUP, &tty->flags);
> > -	return tty->ops->write(serport->tty, data, len);
> > +	ret = tty->ops->write(tty, data, len);
> > +	tty_kref_put(tty);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void ttyport_write_flush(struct serdev_controller *ctrl)
> 
> It should be the responsibility of the driver to ensure
> `serdev_device_close` and `serdev_device_write_buf` are not called
> concurrently.
> 
> This also applies to
> - serdev_device_set_baudrate

Doesn't touch a tty structure, so why is the same reference count logic
needed here?

> - serdev_device_set_flow_control

Same here.

> - serdev_device_wait_until_sent

Or here?

> and more, which currently iirc even introduce a null pointer
> dereference if called with the serdev device closed.
> 
> I don't see why `serdev_device_write_buf` needs special protection
> here, which the other functions don't need for some reason.

It's the access to the tty pointer that I think the issue is, right?

> As with the previous patch, this still makes sense for hardening.
> With scope_guard being used,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Markus Probst <[email protected]>

Great, thanks, I'll send out a v2 next week with that change made, as
I've done it locally and will wait a bit.

thanks,

greg k-h