linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: amba: Fix race condition with driver

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, 26 Apr 2018 09:04:10 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Adrian Salido <salidoa@...gle.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: amba: Fix race condition with driver_override

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:21:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> The driver_override implementation is susceptible to a race condition
> >> when different threads are reading vs storing a different driver
> >> override.  Add locking to avoid this race condition.
> >>
> >> Cfr. commits 6265539776a0810b ("driver core: platform: fix race
> >> condition with driver_override") and 9561475db680f714 ("PCI: Fix race
> >> condition with driver_override").
> >>
> >> Fixes: 3cf385713460eb2b ("ARM: 8256/1: driver coamba: add device binding path 'driver_override'")
> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> >> Reviewed-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
> >> Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> 
> > As this should go to stable kernels, I've fixed it up to apply without
> > patch 1 as that's not a real "fix" that anyone needs...
> >
> > Please try to remember to put fixes first, and then "trivial" things
> > later on in a series.
> 
> I did it on purpose, as the fix is much more ugly without patch 1 applied.
> Can't you just take patch 1, too? More consistency is always nice, even for
> stable ;-)

Consistency is nice, but when you have bug fixes that rely on "trivial"
patches, it's usually not nice :(

I already committed patch 2 to my tree without 1, so let's leave it
as-is for now.

thanks,

greg k-h