linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] vfio/mdev: Follow correct remove sequence

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]

Message-ID: <20190325142052.423badda@x1.home>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:20:52 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kwankhede@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] vfio/mdev: Follow correct remove sequence

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:20:33 -0500
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:

> mdev_remove_sysfs_files() should follow exact mirror sequence of a
> create, similar to what is followed in error unwinding path of
> mdev_create_sysfs_files().
> 
> Fixes: 7b96953bc640 ("vfio: Mediated device Core driver")
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> index ce5dd21..c782fa9 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c
> @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ int  mdev_create_sysfs_files(struct device *dev, struct mdev_type *type)
>  
>  void mdev_remove_sysfs_files(struct device *dev, struct mdev_type *type)
>  {
> +	sysfs_remove_files(&dev->kobj, mdev_device_attrs);
>  	sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "mdev_type");
>  	sysfs_remove_link(type->devices_kobj, dev_name(dev));
> -	sysfs_remove_files(&dev->kobj, mdev_device_attrs);
>  }

Ok, I agree this is good practice, but what qualifies a "Fixes:" tag
here?  The fixes reference is incorrect in any case, 6a62c1dfb5c7
changed the creation ordering and didn't update the remove ordering to
match, but I still don't see an actual problem with the remove ordering
that necessitates the tag.  Please clarify.  Thanks,

Alex