pinctrl: samsung: Suppress unbinding to prevent theoretical attacks
diff mbox

Message ID 1463464926-17482-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Commit Message

Krzysztof Kozlowski May 17, 2016, 6:02 a.m. UTC
Although unbinding a pinctrl driver requires root privileges but it
still might be used theoretically in certain attacks (by triggering NULL
pointer exception or memory corruption).

Samsung pincontrol drivers are essential for system operation so their
removal is not expected. They do not implement remove() driver callback
and they are not buildable as modules.

Suppression of the unbinding will prevent triggering NULL pointer
exception like this (Odroid XU3):

  $ echo 13400000.pinctrl > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/samsung-pinctrl/unbind
  $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio

  Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000c44
  pgd = ec41c000
  [00000c44] *pgd=6d448835, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
  Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
    (samsung_gpio_get) from [<c034f9a0>] (gpiolib_seq_show+0x1b0/0x26c)
    (gpiolib_seq_show) from [<c01fb8c0>] (seq_read+0x304/0x4b8)
    (seq_read) from [<c02dbc78>] (full_proxy_read+0x4c/0x64)
    (full_proxy_read) from [<c01d9fb0>] (__vfs_read+0x2c/0x110)
    (__vfs_read) from [<c01db400>] (vfs_read+0x8c/0x110)
    (vfs_read) from [<c01db4c4>] (SyS_read+0x40/0x8c)
    (SyS_read) from [<c01078c0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)

Suggested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos5440.c | 1 +
 drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c    | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Javier Martinez Canillas May 21, 2016, 2:29 a.m. UTC | #1
Hello Krzysztof,

On 05/17/2016 02:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Although unbinding a pinctrl driver requires root privileges but it
> still might be used theoretically in certain attacks (by triggering NULL
> pointer exception or memory corruption).
> 
> Samsung pincontrol drivers are essential for system operation so their
> removal is not expected. They do not implement remove() driver callback
> and they are not buildable as modules.
> 
> Suppression of the unbinding will prevent triggering NULL pointer
> exception like this (Odroid XU3):
> 
>   $ echo 13400000.pinctrl > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/samsung-pinctrl/unbind
>   $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/gpio
> 
>   Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000c44
>   pgd = ec41c000
>   [00000c44] *pgd=6d448835, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>   Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>     (samsung_gpio_get) from [<c034f9a0>] (gpiolib_seq_show+0x1b0/0x26c)
>     (gpiolib_seq_show) from [<c01fb8c0>] (seq_read+0x304/0x4b8)
>     (seq_read) from [<c02dbc78>] (full_proxy_read+0x4c/0x64)
>     (full_proxy_read) from [<c01d9fb0>] (__vfs_read+0x2c/0x110)
>     (__vfs_read) from [<c01db400>] (vfs_read+0x8c/0x110)
>     (vfs_read) from [<c01db4c4>] (SyS_read+0x40/0x8c)
>     (SyS_read) from [<c01078c0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
> 
> Suggested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>

Best regards,
Linus Walleij May 26, 2016, 9:08 a.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:

> Although unbinding a pinctrl driver requires root privileges but it
> still might be used theoretically in certain attacks (by triggering NULL
> pointer exception or memory corruption).

Patch applied with Javier's review tag.

I suspect this kind of patch should be done to a few
GPIO controller :/

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Krzysztof Kozlowski May 27, 2016, 8:42 a.m. UTC | #3
On 05/26/2016 11:08 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> 
>> Although unbinding a pinctrl driver requires root privileges but it
>> still might be used theoretically in certain attacks (by triggering NULL
>> pointer exception or memory corruption).
> 
> Patch applied with Javier's review tag.
> 
> I suspect this kind of patch should be done to a few
> GPIO controller :/

Probably yes... Either the driver properly and safely handles unbind
(remove() callback) or it should be forbidden. In the same time, even if
remove() is implemented, unbinding some of the core SoC drivers is like
shooting self in the foot.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos5440.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos5440.c
index fb71fc3e5aa0..3000df80709f 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos5440.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos5440.c
@@ -998,6 +998,7 @@  static struct platform_driver exynos5440_pinctrl_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name	= "exynos5440-pinctrl",
 		.of_match_table = exynos5440_pinctrl_dt_match,
+		.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
 	},
 };
 
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
index ed0b70881e19..513fe6b23248 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
@@ -1274,6 +1274,7 @@  static struct platform_driver samsung_pinctrl_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name	= "samsung-pinctrl",
 		.of_match_table = samsung_pinctrl_dt_match,
+		.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
 	},
 };