stm class: Fix a module refcount leak in policy creation error path

Commit c7fd62bc69 ("stm class: Introduce framing protocol drivers")
adds a bug into the error path of policy creation, that would do a
module_put() on a wrong module, if one tried to create a policy for
an stm device which already has a policy, using a different protocol.
IOW,

| mkdir /config/stp-policy/dummy_stm.0:p_basic.test
| mkdir /config/stp-policy/dummy_stm.0:p_sys-t.test # puts "p_basic"
| mkdir /config/stp-policy/dummy_stm.0:p_sys-t.test # "p_basic" -> -1

throws:

| general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
| CPU: 3 PID: 2887 Comm: mkdir
| RIP: 0010:module_put.part.31+0xe/0x90
| Call Trace:
|  module_put+0x13/0x20
|  stm_put_protocol+0x11/0x20 [stm_core]
|  stp_policy_make+0xf1/0x210 [stm_core]
|  ? __kmalloc+0x183/0x220
|  ? configfs_mkdir+0x10d/0x4c0
|  configfs_mkdir+0x169/0x4c0
|  vfs_mkdir+0x108/0x1c0
|  do_mkdirat+0xe8/0x110
|  __x64_sys_mkdir+0x1b/0x20
|  do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x140
|  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

Correct this sad mistake by calling calling 'put' on the correct
reference, which happens to match another error path in the same
function, so we consolidate the two at the same time.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Fixes: c7fd62bc69 ("stm class: Introduce framing protocol drivers")
Reported-by: Ammy Yi <ammy.yi@intel.com>
Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Alexander Shishkin 2018-12-19 17:19:20 +02:00 committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
parent fdfaef2126
commit c18614a1a1
1 changed files with 7 additions and 5 deletions

View File

@ -440,10 +440,8 @@ stp_policy_make(struct config_group *group, const char *name)
stm->policy = kzalloc(sizeof(*stm->policy), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!stm->policy) {
mutex_unlock(&stm->policy_mutex);
stm_put_protocol(pdrv);
stm_put_device(stm);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
ret = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
goto unlock_policy;
}
config_group_init_type_name(&stm->policy->group, name,
@ -458,7 +456,11 @@ unlock_policy:
mutex_unlock(&stm->policy_mutex);
if (IS_ERR(ret)) {
stm_put_protocol(stm->pdrv);
/*
* pdrv and stm->pdrv at this point can be quite different,
* and only one of them needs to be 'put'
*/
stm_put_protocol(pdrv);
stm_put_device(stm);
}