linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

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:	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Monakhov Dmitriy <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:10:29 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:55:51 -0500,
> Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net> wrote:
> 
> > Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:23:06 -0500,
> > > 
> > > This would indicate that dev_uevent had been called. But how could
> > > kobject_uevent then return an error without moaning about an uevent()
> > > error code? Maybe the following debug patch could shed some light on
> > > this (all moaning is prefixed with kobject_uevent_env, so it should be
> > > easy to spot)...
> > 
> > I applied the debug patch, but I don't see any error codes being returned. This time I also got the
> > General Protection Faults. An excerpt of the log is attached.
> 
> Hm, I think I have an idea about what happened.
> 
> The firmware class tried to suppress the first KOBJ_ADD uevent by
> returning -ENODEV in firmware_uevent if FW_STATUS_READY was not set.
> This only worked as long as the return code of kobject_uevent was not
> checked in device_add. hack-to-make-wireless-work.patch made that first
> uevent return successfully, but this possible triggered some udev rule
> too early, leading to firmware load failures.
> 
> The following (completely untested) patch uses uevent_suppress to stop
> the uevent from being generated during device_add. Does this work for
> you?
> 
> ---
>  drivers/base/firmware_class.c |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/firmware_class.c
> @@ -333,6 +333,7 @@ static int fw_register_device(struct dev
>  	f_dev->parent = device;
>  	f_dev->class = &firmware_class;
>  	dev_set_drvdata(f_dev, fw_priv);
> +	f_dev->uevent_suppress = 1;
>  	retval = device_register(f_dev);
>  	if (retval) {
>  		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: device_register failed\n",
> @@ -385,6 +386,7 @@ static int fw_setup_device(struct firmwa
>                  set_bit(FW_STATUS_READY, &fw_priv->status);
>          else
>                  set_bit(FW_STATUS_READY_NOHOTPLUG, &fw_priv->status);
> +	f_dev->uevent_suppress = 0;
>  	*dev_p = f_dev;
>  	goto out;

hm.

Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?

If so, do you think I should labour on with
uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I
drop the lot?  (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not
sure which patch(es) need to be dropped).

Thanks.
-
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/