Commit 3b2167cc authored by Julius Werner's avatar Julius Werner Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

xhci: fix null-pointer dereference when destroying half-built segment rings

commit 68e5254a upstream.

xhci_alloc_segments_for_ring() builds a list of xhci_segments and links
the tail to head at the end (forming a ring). When it bails out for OOM
reasons half-way through, it tries to destroy its half-built list with
xhci_free_segments_for_ring(), even though it is not a ring yet. This
causes a null-pointer dereference upon hitting the last element.

Furthermore, one of its callers (xhci_ring_alloc()) mistakenly believes
the output parameters to be valid upon this kind of OOM failure, and
calls xhci_ring_free() on them. Since the (incomplete) list/ring should
already be destroyed in that case, this would lead to a use after free.

This patch fixes those issues by having xhci_alloc_segments_for_ring()
destroy its half-built, non-circular list manually and destroying the
invalid struct xhci_ring in xhci_ring_alloc() with a plain kfree().

This patch should be backported to kernels as old as 2.6.31, that
contains the commit 0ebbab37 "USB: xhci:
Ring allocation and initialization."

A separate patch will need to be developed for kernels older than 3.4,
since the ring allocation code was refactored in that kernel.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJulius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJulius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2:
 - Adjust context
 - Since segment allocation is done directly in xhci_ring_alloc(), walk
   the list starting from ring->first_seg when freeing]
Signed-off-by: default avatarBen Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: default avatarCAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 2ff95abc
...@@ -180,8 +180,15 @@ static struct xhci_ring *xhci_ring_alloc(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, ...@@ -180,8 +180,15 @@ static struct xhci_ring *xhci_ring_alloc(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
struct xhci_segment *next; struct xhci_segment *next;
next = xhci_segment_alloc(xhci, flags); next = xhci_segment_alloc(xhci, flags);
if (!next) if (!next) {
prev = ring->first_seg;
while (prev) {
next = prev->next;
xhci_segment_free(xhci, prev);
prev = next;
}
goto fail; goto fail;
}
xhci_link_segments(xhci, prev, next, link_trbs, isoc); xhci_link_segments(xhci, prev, next, link_trbs, isoc);
prev = next; prev = next;
...@@ -201,7 +208,7 @@ static struct xhci_ring *xhci_ring_alloc(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, ...@@ -201,7 +208,7 @@ static struct xhci_ring *xhci_ring_alloc(struct xhci_hcd *xhci,
return ring; return ring;
fail: fail:
xhci_ring_free(xhci, ring); kfree(ring);
return NULL; return NULL;
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment