netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate module unloading

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]

Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:42:21 +0200
From:	Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Frank <Alexander.Frank@...rspaecher.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
	Holger Dengler <dengler@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate
 module unloading

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:33:11 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Step 4 should have told UIO that it was gone and had it shut everything
> down properly, so that there would not be a crash.
The MFD driver only knows about a specific MFD cell. Through
enable/disable callbacks the driver could tell UIO ...hm... whom? what?

Neither the MFD driver nor the MFD core knows something about a specific
UIO driver. But only that specific UIO driver knows about the device
node activities. 

> > > You shouldn't need a module reference for this type of thing.
> > The driver uio_pdrv has no chance to recognize that the underlaying platform
> > device has gone.
> The mfd driver could tell it that it is gone, right?
It could tell, but whom and how?

Regards
    Benedikt Spranger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html