Re: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SmmCore: Fix hang due to already-freed memory deference

* Re: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/SmmCore: Fix hang due to already-freed memory deference
       [not found] <20180201101539.320452-1-ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
@ 2018-02-01 16:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
  2018-02-02  0:54   ` Ni, Ruiyu
  2018-02-02  5:40   ` Shi, Steven
  2018-02-02  9:55 ` Zeng, Star
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2018-02-01 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ruiyu Ni, edk2-devel; +Cc: Jiewen Yao, Star Zeng

Hello Ray,

On 02/01/18 11:15, Ruiyu Ni wrote:
> SmiHandlerUnRegister() validates the DispatchHandle by checking
> whether the first 32bit matches to a certain signature
> (SMI_HANDLER_SIGNATURE).
> But if a caller calls *UnRegister() twice and the memory freed by
> first call still contains the signature, the second hang may hang.
> 
> The patch fixes this issue by locating the DispatchHandle
> in all SMI handlers, instead of checking the signature.
> 
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
> ---
>  MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

I'm mildly curious: can we just zero out the signature when the
de-registration / freeing happens? Otherwise, the nested loop added
below will penalize (performance-wise) correctly written client code as
well.

> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> b/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> index ad483a1877ce..6596ea9560d1 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ SmiHandlerUnRegister (
>    SmiEntry = SmiHandler->SmiEntry;
>
>    RemoveEntryList (&SmiHandler->Link);
> +  SmiHandler->Signature = 0;
>    FreePool (SmiHandler);
>
>    if (SmiEntry == NULL) {

Generally, if client code violates an interface contract, then the
called function is not responsible for catching the error and preventing
undefined behavior. For "quality of service", we can go to certain
lengths nonetheless, but it should hopefully not hurt valid client code.

For example, I seem to remember that the list data structure
implementation checks the internal consistency (which can be costly)
only if a PCD is set to a certain value. Is that right? Is it an option
here? (If the above zeroing is not good for some reason.)

Anyway, I'm asking mainly for my own education.

Thanks!
Laszlo

> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c b/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> index ad483a1877..0c09e7fa10 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Core/PiSmmCore/Smi.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  /** @file
>    SMI management.
>  
> -  Copyright (c) 2009 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.<BR>
> +  Copyright (c) 2009 - 2018, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.<BR>
>    This program and the accompanying materials are licensed and made available 
>    under the terms and conditions of the BSD License which accompanies this 
>    distribution.  The full text of the license may be found at        
> @@ -276,14 +276,41 @@ SmiHandlerUnRegister (
>  {
>    SMI_HANDLER  *SmiHandler;
>    SMI_ENTRY    *SmiEntry;
> +  LIST_ENTRY   *EntryLink;
> +  LIST_ENTRY   *HandlerLink;
>  
> -  SmiHandler = (SMI_HANDLER *) DispatchHandle;
> -
> -  if (SmiHandler == NULL) {
> +  if (DispatchHandle == NULL) {
>      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>    }
>  
> -  if (SmiHandler->Signature != SMI_HANDLER_SIGNATURE) {
> +  //
> +  // Look for it in root SMI handlers
> +  //
> +  SmiHandler = NULL;
> +  for ( HandlerLink = GetFirstNode (&mRootSmiEntry.SmiHandlers)
> +      ; !IsNull (&mRootSmiEntry.SmiHandlers, HandlerLink) && (SmiHandler != DispatchHandle)
> +      ; HandlerLink = GetNextNode (&mRootSmiEntry.SmiHandlers, HandlerLink)
> +      ) {
> +    SmiHandler = CR (HandlerLink, SMI_HANDLER, Link, SMI_HANDLER_SIGNATURE);
> +  }
> +
> +  //
> +  // Look for it in non-root SMI handlers
> +  //
> +  for ( EntryLink = GetFirstNode (&mSmiEntryList)
> +      ; !IsNull (&mSmiEntryList, EntryLink) && (SmiHandler != DispatchHandle)
> +      ; EntryLink = GetNextNode (&mSmiEntryList, EntryLink)
> +      ) {
> +    SmiEntry = CR (EntryLink, SMI_ENTRY, AllEntries, SMI_ENTRY_SIGNATURE);
> +    for ( HandlerLink = GetFirstNode (&SmiEntry->SmiHandlers)
> +        ; !IsNull (&SmiEntry->SmiHandlers, HandlerLink) && (SmiHandler != DispatchHandle)
> +        ; HandlerLink = GetNextNode (&SmiEntry->SmiHandlers, HandlerLink)
> +        ) {
> +      SmiHandler = CR (HandlerLink, SMI_HANDLER, Link, SMI_HANDLER_SIGNATURE);
> +    }
> +  }
> +
> +  if (SmiHandler != DispatchHandle) {
>      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>    }
>  
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread