linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kobject: Don't emit change events if not in sysfs

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:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:27:27 -0700
From:   Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@...omium.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kobject: Don't emit change events if not in sysfs

Hi Greg,

I was debugging without a live repro and I was told this patch
improved behavior but it's only by chance (someone bisected a Dell
D6000 dock's displayport issue to this commit and this change seemed
to help; udev logs later shows that's not the case). I took another
look at device_init_wakeup and I can see that
device_set_wakeup_capable does indeed check for device_is_registered
before adding the wakeup attributes so the ordering of events I
suspected cannot occur.

Thanks for pushing back Greg. It made me take a deeper look at an
assumption I hadn't challenged. Please consider this patch abandoned.

Abhishek

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:56 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote:
> > Add a check to make sure the kobj is created and in sysfs before sending
> > a change event notification. Otherwise, udev rules that depend on the
> > change notification may find that the path that changed doesn't actually
> > exist.
>
> Why is the user of the kobject trying to emit a uevent before it is
> registered?  Shouldn't we fix the root problem here instead?  Otherwise
> the event is still "gone", the caller will not know what to do about it.
>
> Please fix the root problem here.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h