dmaengine: fix use-after-free in dma_chan_put() and dma_release_channel()grafted

When dma_device_put() drops the last reference on chan->device->ref,
dma_device_release() runs and may free the dma_device along with its
channels.

dma_chan_put() then still reads chan->device->owner via
dma_chan_to_owner() for the trailing module_put(). KASAN catches it:

	slab-use-after-free in dma_chan_put+0x3e6/0x4c0
	Read of size 8 by task insmod/6319
	Freed by task 6319:
	  kfree+0x225/0x470
	  dma_chan_put+0x395/0x4c0
	  dmaengine_put+0xf8/0x160

Cache the module owner in dma_chan_put() before the put so the trailing
module_put() does not need chan->device.

Fixes: 8ad342a86359 ("dmaengine: Add reference counting to dma_device struct")
Suggested-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518-dmaengine-kref-fix-v1-1-4d6125048fb7@amd.com
Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260822-dmaengine-kref-fix-v5-3-d4a4ee47d927@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 85 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/samples/check-exec/set-exec.c b/samples/check-exec/set-exec.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ba86a60a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/samples/check-exec/set-exec.c
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+/*
+ * Simple tool to set SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE, SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE,
+ * before executing a command.
+ *
+ * Copyright © 2024 Microsoft Corporation
+ */
+
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+#define __SANE_USERSPACE_TYPES__
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <linux/prctl.h>
+#include <linux/securebits.h>
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <sys/prctl.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+
+static void print_usage(const char *argv0)
+{
+	fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s -f|-i -- <cmd> [args]...\n\n", argv0);
+	fprintf(stderr, "Execute a command with\n");
+	fprintf(stderr, "- SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE set: -f\n");
+	fprintf(stderr, "- SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE set: -i\n");
+}
+
+int main(const int argc, char *const argv[], char *const *const envp)
+{
+	const char *cmd_path;
+	char *const *cmd_argv;
+	int opt, secbits_cur, secbits_new;
+	bool has_policy = false;
+
+	secbits_cur = prctl(PR_GET_SECUREBITS);
+	if (secbits_cur == -1) {
+		/*
+		 * This should never happen, except with a buggy seccomp
+		 * filter.
+		 */
+		perror("ERROR: Failed to get securebits");
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	secbits_new = secbits_cur;
+	while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "fi")) != -1) {
+		switch (opt) {
+		case 'f':
+			secbits_new |= SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE |
+				       SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE_LOCKED;
+			has_policy = true;
+			break;
+		case 'i':
+			secbits_new |= SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE |
+				       SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE_LOCKED;
+			has_policy = true;
+			break;
+		default:
+			print_usage(argv[0]);
+			return 1;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (!argv[optind] || !has_policy) {
+		print_usage(argv[0]);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	if (secbits_cur != secbits_new &&
+	    prctl(PR_SET_SECUREBITS, secbits_new)) {
+		perror("Failed to set secure bit(s).");
+		fprintf(stderr,
+			"Hint: The running kernel may not support this feature.\n");
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	cmd_path = argv[optind];
+	cmd_argv = argv + optind;
+	fprintf(stderr, "Executing command...\n");
+	execvpe(cmd_path, cmd_argv, envp);
+	fprintf(stderr, "Failed to execute \"%s\": %s\n", cmd_path,
+		strerror(errno));
+	return 1;
+}