MAX1111: Fix race condition causing NULL pointer exception

Commit Message

Pavel Herrmann May 19, 2011, 10:13 p.m. UTC

On Thursday, May 19, 2011 09:31:21 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I'm not sure that this is right.  Taking the lock around spi_sync() ensures
> that two concurrent spi_sync()s can't happen in parallel, but with this you
> could end up with another happening as soon as this lock is released -
> before you've accessed the data which was transferred.
> 
> I think you want to hold the mutex at the point you setup the data to be
> transferred, do the transfer, and then release the mutex once you've read
> the results of the transfer.

oh no, not again...
this was the earliest version, not the cleaned-up one (notice the lock in 
setup-transfer, which I said was unnecessary)
here is the cleaner (newest) version:


From bd55d6b18fa4fcb884980825b43b43df01767149 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavel Herrmann <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:18:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] MAX1111: Fix Race condition causing NULL pointer exception

spi_sync call uses its spi_message parameter to keep completion information,
having this structure static is not thread-safe, potentially causing one
thread having pointers to memory on or above other threads stack. use mutex
to prevent multiple access

Signed-off-by: Pavel Herrmann <[e-mail]>
---
 drivers/hwmon/max1111.c |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

 	kfree(data);

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/max1111.c b/drivers/hwmon/max1111.c
index 12a54aa..d872f57 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/max1111.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/max1111.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@  struct max1111_data {
 	struct spi_transfer	xfer[2];
 	uint8_t *tx_buf;
 	uint8_t *rx_buf;
+	struct mutex		msg_lock_mutex;
 };
 
 static int max1111_read(struct device *dev, int channel)
@@ -48,6 +49,11 @@  static int max1111_read(struct device *dev, int channel)
 	uint8_t v1, v2;
 	int err;
 
+	/* spi_sync requires data not to be freed before function returns
+	 * for static data, any access is dangerous, use locks
+	 */
+	mutex_lock(&data->msg_lock_mutex);
+
 	data->tx_buf[0] = (channel << MAX1111_CTRL_SEL_SH) |
 		MAX1111_CTRL_PD0 | MAX1111_CTRL_PD1 |
 		MAX1111_CTRL_SGL | MAX1111_CTRL_UNI | MAX1111_CTRL_STR;
@@ -55,12 +61,15 @@  static int max1111_read(struct device *dev, int channel)
 	err = spi_sync(data->spi, &data->msg);
 	if (err < 0) {
 		dev_err(dev, "spi_sync failed with %d\n", err);
+		mutex_unlock(&data->msg_lock_mutex);
 		return err;
 	}
 
 	v1 = data->rx_buf[0];
 	v2 = data->rx_buf[1];
 
+	mutex_unlock(&data->msg_lock_mutex);
+
 	if ((v1 & 0xc0) || (v2 & 0x3f))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
@@ -176,6 +185,8 @@  static int __devinit max1111_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 	if (err)
 		goto err_free_data;
 
+	mutex_init(&data->msg_lock_mutex);
+
 	data->spi = spi;
 	spi_set_drvdata(spi, data);
 
@@ -213,6 +224,7 @@  static int __devexit max1111_remove(struct spi_device 
*spi)
 
 	hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
 	sysfs_remove_group(&spi->dev.kobj, &max1111_attr_group);
+	mutex_destroy(data->msg_lock_mutex);
 	kfree(data->rx_buf);
 	kfree(data->tx_buf);