| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:18:21 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Input: Remove unsafe device module references On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:09:27PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:52:11PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > >> My solution: Some parent subsystem of us must take and release this > >> module-refcnt instead of us, so this bug doesn't occur. > > > > Yes, that is the ultimate solution for something like this. > > > > But, in reality, we don't care about module unloading races as there are > > plenty of other issues involved there where things can go bad, so we > > just try the best we can :) > > Ah, I am kind of relieved that I got this right. I almost started > thinking I am insane.. ;) > > So your answer is that this is so unlikely that it won't be fixed? I > am fine with that, even though I wonder why stuff like "struct > file_operations" include "owner" fields to protect callbacks but > "struct device_type" does *not* include any protection of it's > "release" callback. I think adding owner to device_type might not be a bad idea at all... Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists