linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] platform/chrome: Fix a possible UAF via revocable

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: <CAMRc=Mf76m51VKktGc2K1uT4eacDqhsroRxG2RgtRyhQrhx0WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:44:56 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, 
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Dawid Niedzwiecki <dawidn@...gle.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] platform/chrome: Fix a possible UAF via revocable

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 4:40 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Dan's proposal here is a good start, but the "sleep in cdev_del() until
> the device drains all existing opens" is going to not really work well
> for what we want.
>
> So sure, make a new cdev api to use this, that's fine, then we will have
> what, 5 different ways to use a cdev?  :)
>
> Seriously, that would be good, then we can work to convert things over,
> but I think overall it will look much the same as what patch 5/5 does
> here.  But details matter, I don't really known for sure...
>
> Either way, I think this patch series stands on its own, it doesn't
> require cdev to implement it, drivers can use it to wrap a cdev if they
> want to.  We have other structures that want to do this type of thing
> today as is proof with the rust implementation for the devm api.
>

Yeah, I'm not against this going upstream. If more development is
needed for this to be usable in other parts of the kernel, that can be
done gradually. Literally no subsystem ever was perfect on day 1.

Tzung-Bi: I'm not sure if you did submit anything but I'd love to see
this discussed during Linux Plumbers in Tokyo, it's the perfect fit
for the kernel summit.

Bartosz