| Message ID | 1497857229-12049-13-git-send-email-robert.jarzmik@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:27:09 +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > > From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > soc_cleanup_card_resources() call snd_card_free() at the last of its > procedure. This turned out to lead to a use-after-free. > PCM runtimes have been already removed via soc_remove_pcm_runtimes(), > while it's dereferenced later in soc_pcm_free() called via > snd_card_free(). > > The fix is simple: just move the snd_card_free() call to the beginning > of the whole procedure. This also gives another benefit: it > guarantees that all operations have been shut down before actually > releasing the resources, which was racy until now. > > Reported-and-tested-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> This patch must be superfluous :) Takashi > --- > sound/soc/soc-core.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > index 2722bb0c5573..98d60f471c5d 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > @@ -2286,6 +2286,9 @@ static int soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card) > list_for_each_entry(rtd, &card->rtd_list, list) > flush_delayed_work(&rtd->delayed_work); > > + /* free the ALSA card at first; this syncs with pending operations */ > + snd_card_free(card->snd_card); > + > /* remove and free each DAI */ > soc_remove_dai_links(card); > soc_remove_pcm_runtimes(card); > @@ -2300,9 +2303,7 @@ static int soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card) > if (card->remove) > card->remove(card); > > - snd_card_free(card->snd_card); > return 0; > - > } > > /* removes a socdev */ > -- > 2.1.4 > >
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> writes: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:27:09 +0200, > Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> >> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> >> >> soc_cleanup_card_resources() call snd_card_free() at the last of its >> procedure. This turned out to lead to a use-after-free. >> PCM runtimes have been already removed via soc_remove_pcm_runtimes(), >> while it's dereferenced later in soc_pcm_free() called via >> snd_card_free(). >> >> The fix is simple: just move the snd_card_free() call to the beginning >> of the whole procedure. This also gives another benefit: it >> guarantees that all operations have been shut down before actually >> releasing the resources, which was racy until now. >> >> Reported-and-tested-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > This patch must be superfluous :) Haha :) My serie shifted by one, so the very first of the serie is therefore missing, formerly "ALSA: ac97: split out the generic ac97 registers" in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9398143/, and the shift triggered the inclusion of the last patch of my tree, ie. yours :) Cheers. -- Robert
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:57:20PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > My serie shifted by one, so the very first of the serie is therefore missing, > formerly "ALSA: ac97: split out the generic ac97 registers" in > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9398143/, and the shift triggered the > inclusion of the last patch of my tree, ie. yours :) Based on the missing first patch I was expecting the series to get reposted?
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:57:20PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > >> My serie shifted by one, so the very first of the serie is therefore missing, >> formerly "ALSA: ac97: split out the generic ac97 registers" in >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9398143/, and the shift triggered the >> inclusion of the last patch of my tree, ie. yours :) > > Based on the missing first patch I was expecting the series to get > reposted? Hi Mark, The first patch is only moving around a .h file. I was expecting a review before reposting a v3. Cheers.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes: > > Based on the missing first patch I was expecting the series to get > > reposted? > The first patch is only moving around a .h file. I was expecting a review before > reposting a v3. I can't tell what's in the first patch if you didn't send it.... :( In general it's best to resend for things like this, I know I focus my review on things that can progress as-is.
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> writes: > >> > Based on the missing first patch I was expecting the series to get >> > reposted? > >> The first patch is only moving around a .h file. I was expecting a review before >> reposting a v3. > > I can't tell what's in the first patch if you didn't send it.... :( > In general it's best to resend for things like this, I know I focus my > review on things that can progress as-is. OK, no problem, I'll resend a v2 resend in the following hours. Cheers.
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 2722bb0c5573..98d60f471c5d 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -2286,6 +2286,9 @@ static int soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card) list_for_each_entry(rtd, &card->rtd_list, list) flush_delayed_work(&rtd->delayed_work); + /* free the ALSA card at first; this syncs with pending operations */ + snd_card_free(card->snd_card); + /* remove and free each DAI */ soc_remove_dai_links(card); soc_remove_pcm_runtimes(card); @@ -2300,9 +2303,7 @@ static int soc_cleanup_card_resources(struct snd_soc_card *card) if (card->remove) card->remove(card); - snd_card_free(card->snd_card); return 0; - } /* removes a socdev */