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]
Date:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:13:03 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <rafael@...nel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <robh@...nel.org>,
        <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Postpone DMA tear-down until after devres
 release for probe failure

On 11/04/2019 12:01, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The crash occurs for the same reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this case, on the really_probe() failure path, we are still
>>>>>>> clearing
>>>>>>> the DMA ops prior to releasing the device's managed memories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch fixes this issue by reordering the DMA ops teardown
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> call to devres_release_all() on the failure path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reported-by: Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
>>>>>>> Tested-by: Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> So does this "fix" 376991db4b64?  If so, should this be added to the
>>>>> patch and also backported to the stable trees?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think so. I'd say it supplements it. Here I'm trying to fix
>>>> up another path in which we tear down the DMA ops prior to releasing
>>>> the
>>>> device's resources.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't add a fixes tag as 376991db4b64 didn't have one either. It
>>>> will
>>>> need to be backported to stable, I figure the same as 376991db4b64.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> I still think that we should consider merging this patch.
>
> Bah, sorry, I thought I'd replied to this thread already, but apparently
> not :(
>
> I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but at the moment I am
> leaning slightly towards this being a parallel fix for another part of
> 09515ef5ddad, rather than a specific fix of the other fix. Either way,
> you can have a:

I'd say a parallel fix of 09515ef5ddad.

>
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>

cheers Robin

> Thanks,
> Robin.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists