| 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: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:00:03 +0800 From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> Subject: Re: Linux 4.2-rc1 On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Linus Torvalds >> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >>> Also, it looks like you need to hold the "fw_lock" to even look at >>> that pointer, since the buffer can get reallocated etc. >> >> Yes, the above code with holding 'fw_lock' is right fix for the issue since >> sysfs read can happen anytime, and there is one race between firmware >> request abort and reading uevent of sysfs. > > So if fw_priv->buf is NULL, what should we do? > > Should we skip the TIMEOUT= and ASYNC= fields too? When the request is aborted, the firmware device will be removed, so it is OK to skip the two fields. > > Something like the attached, perhaps? Looks it is fine. > > Shuah, how reproducible is this? Does this (completely untested) patch > make any difference? > > Linus -- 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