linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] driver core: fix use-after-free of driver_override via driver_match

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DFNIZZ4P4DV4.3972S35CYSL89@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:20:04 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Gui-Dong Han" <hanguidong02@...il.com>
Cc: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <baijiaju1990@...il.com>, "Qiu-ji Chen"
 <chenqiuji666@...il.com>, <2045gemini@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] driver core: fix use-after-free of driver_override
 via driver_match_device()

On Tue Jan 13, 2026 at 3:05 PM CET, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> I see your point now. I agree that we should frame this as fixing the
> inconsistent locking guarantee of match() callbacks. This is exactly
> what the code changes in my patch implement. The fix for
> driver_override UAF is a natural result of this consistency.
>
> I plan to send a v4 to update the subject and commit log to focus on
> enforcing consistent locking.

Great, thanks!

> For the code comment, I will remove the mention of
> driver_set_override. Do you prefer /* Ensure consistent locking for
> match() callbacks */ or simply no comment?

I think both is fine, the comment probably doesn't hurt.

> Regarding the larger refactoring of driver_override, I am willing to
> look into it as a follow-up task.

Thanks!