[PATCH] staging: line6: fix use-after-free bug

Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Mon Jun 3 23:08:21 UTC 2013


On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:49:36AM +0200, Markus Grabner wrote:
> On Sunday 20 January 2013 23:51:36 Markus Grabner wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013, 09:11:50 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:55:29PM +0100, Markus Grabner wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013, 16:57:31 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:52:14PM +0100, Markus Grabner wrote:
> > > > > > The function "line6_send_raw_message_async" now has an additional
> > > > > > argument
> > > > > > "bool copy", which indicates whether the supplied buffer should be
> > > > > > copied
> > > > > > into a dynamically allocated block of memory. The copy flag is also
> > > > > > stored in the "message" struct such that the temporary memory can be
> > > > > > freed when appropriate without intervention of the caller.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why do this?  Why not either always copy it, or always not?
> > > > 
> > > > Some messages are sent to the device which have no parameters, they are
> > > > declared at global scope as constant byte arrays and therefore must be
> > > > copied into a dynamically allocated block of memory in order to be sent
> > > > over the USB interface. On the other hand, there are messages which do
> > > > have parameters and which are composed in dynamically allocated memory
> > > > and can therefore directly be sent without copying.
> > > 
> > > Then if you always copy the memory, and "own" it after the call, you
> > > should be fine, right?
> > > 
> > > > > What is this fixing?
> > > > 
> > > > Two users reported to me independently that the driver doesn't work for
> > > > them. I couldn't reproduce the problem since it seems to be triggered by
> > > > subtle timing issues in the system, but after some further
> > > > investigations, the kfree() of the message buffer immediately after
> > > > submitting the message for asynchronous transmission was clearly
> > > > identified as the reason for the driver not working. The patch puts the
> > > > kfree() at the right place and (hopefully) prevents incorrect use of the
> > > > new buffer copy feature. The patch is tested by me and the users who
> > > > initially reported the bug, and they confirmed that the issue is fixed
> > > > for them.
> > > > 
> > > > If anybody has a better idea how to fix this, please go ahead! The patch
> > > > might also become obsolete in the future due to refactoring. But
> > > > currently there is a bug which prevents some people from using the
> > > > driver
> > > > at all, and this should be fixed soon IMO.
> > > 
> > > I agree, it should be fixed, but having the code always do the copy and
> > > manage the memory, and not have the crazy "flag" option, should solve
> > > the bug for everyone.
> > 
> > Removing the flag saves three lines of code, keeping the flag saves a tiny
> > amount of time and memory, so it's not really worth a lengthy discussion,
> > and I actually don't care much. I will focus on the user space library I'm
> > currently working on since it will make much of the MIDI-related Line6
> > kernel driver code obsolete.
> I'm currently re-investigating this, and I have been informed by users that 
> some newer Line6 devices talk a device-specific protocol over USB which is 
> different from the MIDI standard and should therefore not be mapped to a 
> virtual MIDI device. This raises some additional questions:
> 
> *) The easiest way to deal with this would be to use libusb in user space to 
> exchange data with the device. However, as far as I understand, if the device 
> is being used as an ALSA sound card (i.e., the kernel driver has claimed the 
> USB interface to access isochronous endpoints), libusb can't access interrupt 
> endpoints of the same interface at the same time since it can't claim the 
> interface while it is claimed by the kernel. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.

> *) If shared kernel/user space access to the same USB interface is not 
> possible as discussed above, what would be the preferred interface for user 
> space applications to talk to the kernel driver? I think netlink is a good 
> candidate, or do you have any other suggestions?

What exactly do you need to communicate from user to kernel?  That is
going to dictate what interface to use.

thanks,

greg k-h



More information about the devel mailing list