netdev - Re: [PATCH net 000/117] net: avoid to remove module when its debugfs is being used

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:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:33:41 -0700
From:   Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "wil6210@....qualcomm.com" <wil6210@....qualcomm.com>,
        "brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com" <brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com>,
        "b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org" <b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 000/117] net: avoid to remove module when its debugfs
 is being used

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:22 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 19:15 +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote:
> >
> > Okay, as you mentioned earlier in 001/117 patch thread,
> > I will squash patches into per-driver/subsystem then send them as v2.
>
> Give me a bit. I think I figured out a less intrusive way that at least
> means we don't have to do it if the fops doesn't have ->release(), which
> is the vast majority.
>

While I'm all for a patch that fixes something at a single level
instead of touching 100s of files, let me ask a loosely related, but
more basic, question: Should `->owner` be set properly in each driver?
 Or the flip of that, should we be considering that it isn't a
semantic error? I don't know the answer myself, I just thought to ask
the question.

IMHO, if true that `->owner` should be set for "correctness", and even
if we fix the debugfs problem elsewhere, perhaps this series (squashed
of course) should be merged.

- Steve