linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] Bluetooth: Fix possible race with userspace of sysfs isoc

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: <2025021347-washboard-slashed-5d08@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:10:11 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Hsin-chen Chuang <chharry@...gle.com>
Cc: luiz.dentz@...il.com, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
	chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming@...omium.org,
	Hsin-chen Chuang <chharry@...omium.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Ying Hsu <yinghsu@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] Bluetooth: Fix possible race with userspace of
 sysfs isoc_alt

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 07:57:15PM +0800, Hsin-chen Chuang wrote:
> The btusb driver data is allocated by devm_kzalloc and is
> automatically freed on driver detach, so I guess we don't have
> anything to do here.

What?  A struct device should NEVER be allocated with devm_kzalloc.
That's just not going to work at all.

> Or perhaps we should move btusb_disconnect's content here? Luiz, what
> do you think?

I think something is really wrong here.  Why are you adding a new struct
device to the system?  What requires that?  What is this new device
going to be used for?

confused,

greg k-h