[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67c33f11-0196-44f4-9cdd-762618cb88be@baylibre.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 13:49:16 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: fxls8962af: Fix use after free in
fxls8962af_fifo_flush
On 5/29/25 1:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 7:02 PM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/25 5:34 AM, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> fxls8962af_suspend() calls enable_irq_wake(data->irq); before disabling the
>> interrupt by calling fxls8962af_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>
>> It seems like the order should be reversed.
>
> AFAIU the wake capability of IRQ line is orthogonal to the interrupt
> controller enabling (unmasking) / disabling (masking) the line itself.
> Or did you mean something else?
>
I don't know enough about how suspend/wake stuff works to say for sure.
I just saw the comment:
/*
* Disable buffer, as the buffer is so small the device will wake
* almost immediately.
*/
so I assumed someone had observed something like this happening already.
If an interrupt occurs between enable_irq_wake() and actually
going into a low power mode, what effect does it have? I ask because I
don't know.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists