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:   Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:53:47 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: proc: fix a procfs entry leak

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:50 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> My point is: the same rule should apply to in-kernel consumers. When
> they request a resource, they get a reference to it. The resource is
> managed by its provider. If the provider is going down, it frees the
> resource. The consumer tries to use it -> it gets an error. I'm not
> convinced by the life-time rules argument. The consumer is not
> CREATING a resource. It's REQUESTING it for usage. IMO this means it
> REFERENCES it, not OWNS it. And so is only responsible for putting the
> reference.
>
> Bartosz
>

Hi Thomas, Greg et al,

I am at LPC and will present a talk on Wednesday 5:15pm at the kernel
summit about object life-time issues. I'll reference this problem
among others. Please consider it in your schedules, I think it'll be
useful to discuss it in person as it's a generic problem in many
driver subsystems.

Bartosz