netdev - Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix LED-related deadlock on module removal

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: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:02:31 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix LED-related deadlock on module removal

On 17.04.2024 04:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:57:17 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Binding devm_led_classdev_register() to the netdev is problematic
>> because on module removal we get a RTNL-related deadlock. Fix this
>> by avoiding the device-managed LED functions.
>>
>> Note: We can safely call led_classdev_unregister() for a LED even
>> if registering it failed, because led_classdev_unregister() detects
>> this and is a no-op in this case.
>>
>> Fixes: 18764b883e15 ("r8169: add support for LED's on RTL8168/RTL8101")
>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 6.8.x
>> Reported-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> 
> Looks like I already applied one chunk of this as commit 97e176fcbbf3
> ("r8169: add missing conditional compiling for call to r8169_remove_leds")
> Is it worth throwing that in as a Fixes tag?

This is a version of the fix modified to apply on 6.8.
It's not supposed to be applied on net / net-next.
Should I have sent it to stable@...r.kernel.org only?