linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] hid: hid-core: Fix a sleep-in-atomic-context bug in __hid

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1810040935090.14430@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:35:35 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
cc:     benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] hid: hid-core: Fix a sleep-in-atomic-context bug in
 __hid_request()

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:

> > Why? Forcing all the report buffer to be limited to be non-sleeping
> > allocations just because of two drivers, looks like an overkill, and
> > actually calls for more issues (as GFP_ATOMIC is of course in principle
> > less likely to succeed).
> 
> Okay, I thought that using GFP_ATOMIC is the simplest way to fix these bugs.
> But I check the Linux kernel code again, and find that hid_hw_request() are
> called at many places.
> So changing this function may affect many drivers.
> I agree to only change the two drivers, and explicitly anotate __hid_request()
> with might_sleep().

Thanks. Are you planning to submit a patch to do that?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs