netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate module unloading

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 01:09:01 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Frank <Alexander.Frank@...rspaecher.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
	Holger Dengler <dengler@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate
 module unloading

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:27:53AM +0200, Benedikt Spranger wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:59:36 -0700
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hm.  Ah, doesn't this work like PCI, when a PCI device is removed from
> > the system, reads just start returning all 0xFF, so the userspace UIO
> > driver now knows the device is gone from the system.  Doesn't MFD
> > hardware work the same way?  Why would removing the MFD driver affect
> > UIO at all, as it's just an interrupt and memory, both of which are
> > controlled by UIO, not MFD at all.
> > 
> > confused,
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> MFD core allocates the platform device structure and platform data
> dynamicaly and fill it up with appropriate data from the MFD cell data.
> And MFD core frees this memory on unregistering.
> 
> Therefore the UIO driver needs to know that the underlaying platform device
> struct and platform device data are invalid and should not be used any more.
> The whole point are dynamicaly allocated devices and UIO.

Given that a UIO driver does need to specificly bind to a device (be it
a PCI, OF, or something else), it should be the one that is notified
when a device is removed.

Again, just like PCI is handled today, why is MFD so "special" that it
can't tell the drivers bound to its devices that it is going away?

Do you have a specific example of an in-tree UIO driver that has this
problem that I can look at to try to understand this better?

Still confused,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html