linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

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: <20260130091205.GI3374091@killaraus>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 11:12:05 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@....qualcomm.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Revert "revocable: Revocable resource management"

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 03:01:50PM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 03:57:44PM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 06:05:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Turns out there are correctness issues with both the gpiolib conversion and
> > > the revocable design itself that can lead to use-after-free and hung tasks (see
> > > [1] and patch 3/3).
> > [...]
> > > Revert the revocable implementation until a redesign has been proposed and
> > > evaluated properly.
> > 
> > I'll work on addressing the discovered issues and send follow-up fixes.  I
> > believe keeping the current series in linux-next would be beneficial, as it
> > allows for easier testing and wider evaluation by others, rather than
> > reverting at this stage.
> 
> FWIW: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260129143733.45618-2-tzungbi@kernel.org/
> and https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260129143733.45618-4-tzungbi@kernel.org/
> are the proposed fixes.

I won't review that, sorry. As multiple people said in this mail thread,
the API needs to go back to the design board.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart