linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] can: etas

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: <CAMZ6Rq+Gi+rcLqSj2-kug7c1G_nNuj6peh5nH1DNoo8B3aSxzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:34:34 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Lukas Magel <lukas.magel@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] can: etas_es58x: add devlink support

On Mon. 28 Nov. 2022 at 00:41, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 02:10:32PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > > Should devlink_free() be after usb_set_inftdata()?
> >
> > A look at
> >   $ git grep -W "usb_set_intfdata(.*NULL)"
> >
> > shows that the two patterns (freeing before or after
> > usb_set_intfdata()) coexist.
> >
> > You are raising an important question here. usb_set_intfdata() does
> > not have documentation that freeing before it is risky. And the
> > documentation of usb_driver::disconnect says that:
> >   "@disconnect: Called when the interface is no longer accessible,
> >    usually because its device has been (or is being) disconnected
> >    or the driver module is being unloaded."
> >   Ref: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc6/source/include/linux/usb.h#L1130
> >
> > So the interface no longer being accessible makes me assume that the
> > order does not matter. If it indeed matters, then this is a foot gun
> > and there is some clean-up work waiting for us on many drivers.
> >
> > @Greg, any thoughts on whether or not the order of usb_set_intfdata()
> > and resource freeing matters or not?
>
> In fact, drivers don't have to call usb_set_intfdata(NULL) at all; the
> USB core does it for them after the ->disconnect() callback returns.

Interesting. This fact is widely unknown, cf:
  $ git grep "usb_set_intfdata(.*NULL)" | wc -l
  215

I will do some clean-up later on, at least for the CAN USB drivers.

> But if a driver does make the call, it should be careful to ensure that
> the call happens _after_ the driver is finished using the interface-data
> pointer.  For example, after all outstanding URBs have completed, if the
> completion handlers will need to call usb_get_intfdata().

ACK. I understand that it should be called *after* the completion of
any ongoing task.

My question was more on:

        devlink_free(priv_to_devlink(es58x_dev));
        usb_set_intfdata(intf, NULL);

VS.

        usb_set_intfdata(intf, NULL);
        devlink_free(priv_to_devlink(es58x_dev));

>From your comments, I understand that both are fine.

> Remember, the interface-data pointer is owned by the driver.  Nothing
> else in the kernel uses it.  So the driver merely has to be careful not
> to clear the pointer while it is still using it.

Thanks for your comments!


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol