linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:35:17 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: fix sysfs-attribute removal deadlock

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:19 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > cc'ing Li Zhong who's working on a simliar issue in the following
> > thread and quoting whole body.
> > 
> >   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1680706
> > 
> > Li, this is another variation of the same problem.  Maybe this can be
> > covered by your work too?
> 
> It seems to me that it is about write something to driver attribute, and
> driver unloading. If so, maybe it's not easy to reuse the help functions
> created for device attribute, and device removing.
> 
> But I guess the idea to break the active protection could still be
> applied here:
> 
> Maybe we could try_module_get() here (like the other option suggested by
> Johan?), and break active protection if we could get the module,
> something like below? 

I don't get why try_module_get() matters here.  We can't call into
->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying
module can't go away if the target device is still alive.
try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object.  Why does that
matter?  This is self removal, right?  Can you please take a look at
kernfs_remove_self()?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/