netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: Fix lack of reference count on PHY driver

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: <20170202.230013.627103966507584854.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:00:13 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk,
        maowenan@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: Fix lack of reference count on PHY driver

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:47:43 -0800

> Le 02/02/17 à 18:54, David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:46:43 -0800
>> 
>>> From: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> There is currently no reference count being held on the PHY driver,
>>> which makes it possible to remove the PHY driver module while the PHY
>>> state machine is running and polling the PHY. This could cause crashes
>>> similar to this one to show up:
>>  ...
>>> Keep references on the PHY driver module right before we are going to
>>> utilize it in phy_attach_direct(), and conversely when we don't use it
>>> anymore in phy_detach().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
>>> [florian: rebase, rework commit message]
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> 
>> I think grabbing the module reference is the only easy fix we
>> can do for now.
>> 
>> Hot plugging PHYs and notifications and all of that business is
>> net-next material.
>> 
>> Florian, do you need to respin this with the workqueue or whatever
>> suggestion Russell made?
> 
> That seems to deserve a separate fix of its own it seems, because it
> becomes tangential to this particular problem.

Ok, patch applied then.

Thanks!