[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190704054058.GC347@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:40:58 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <smuchun@...il.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
prsood@...eaurora.org, mojha@...eaurora.org, gkohli@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 OPT2] driver core: Fix use-after-free and double free
on glue directory
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 08:57:13AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 21:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > -static struct kobject *get_device_parent(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct device *parent)
> > > +/**
> > > + * __get_device_parent() - Get the parent device kobject.
> > > + * @dev: Pointer to the device structure.
> > > + * @parent: Pointer to the parent device structure.
> > > + * @lock: When we live in a glue directory, should we hold the
> > > + * gdp_mutex lock when this function returns? If @lock
> > > + * is true, this function returns with the gdp_mutex
> > > + * holed. Otherwise it will not.
> >
> > Ugh, if you are trying to get me to hate one version of these patches,
> > this is how you do it :)
> >
> > A function should not "sometimes takes a lock, sometimes does not,
> > depending on a parameter passed into it" That way lies madness...
>
> Yes, I prefer this approach to the fix but I dont like the patch either
> for the same reason...
>
> ...
>
> > Anyway, this is a mess.
> >
> > Ugh I hate glue dirs...
>
> Amen...
Well, can we just remove them? Who relies on them anymore?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists