linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.2-rc1

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:	Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:17:52 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
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 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?

Something like the attached, perhaps?

Shuah, how reproducible is this? Does this (completely untested) patch
make any difference?

                  Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1254 bytes)