linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] USB: dwc3: qcom: fix resource leaks on probe deferral

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: <74cswe5tivcctmnty3gfavzsxdvjz5m4rktyj5auzwvrndninm@dah4h2fdj3zv>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:22:54 -0600
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] USB: dwc3: qcom: fix resource leaks on probe deferral

On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:47:30AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 17.11.2023 18:36, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > When reviewing the recently submitted series which reworks the dwc3 qcom
> > glue implementation [1], I noticed that the driver's tear down handling
> > is currently broken, something which can lead to memory leaks and
> > potentially use-after-free issues on probe deferral and on driver
> > unbind.
> > 
> > Let's get this sorted before reworking driver.
> > 
> > Note that the last patch has only been compile tested as I don't have
> > access to a sdm845 device.
> > 
> > Johan
> I'll sound like a broken record, but:
> 
> is there anyone in the world that is actively benefiting from this failed
> experiment of using the ACPI tables that were shipped with these SoCs?
> 
> There are so so so many shortcomings associated with it due to how Windows
> drivers on these platforms know waaaay too much and largely use ACPI to
> "bind driver x" and I simply think it doesn't make sense to continue
> carrying this code forward given little use and no testing.
> 
> Konrad
> 

For what it is worth, I have agreed with your opinion on this every time
I've read it. I am not the target audience of the question, but I'll at
least give my personal (interpreted: uneducated? undesired?) opinion
that the ACPI support in here adds little value and extra burden.

Of course that topic is a bit independent of this series, but I'd be
curious if a patchset removing the support would be welcomed or not by
maintainers, so I'm stirring the pot by replying here :)

Thanks,
Andrew