linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: proc: fix a procfs entry leak

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:11:16 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     brgl@...ev.pl
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: proc: fix a procfs entry leak

On Fri, Aug 25 2023 at 00:36, brgl@...ev.pl wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 22:12:41 +0200, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> said:
> Here a GPIO device - that is also an irq chip - is unbound (this is a testing
> module unbound during a test-case but it can be anything else, like an I2C
> expander for which the driver is unloaded) while some users called
> request_irq() on its interrupts (this is orthogonal to gpiod_get() and doesn't
> take a reference to the module, so nothing is stopping us from
> unloading it)

You just described the real problem in this sentence. So why are you
trying to cure a symptom?

Thanks,

        tglx