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]

Message-ID: <2024041709-prorate-swifter-523d@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:04:38 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"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 Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:02:31AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> 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.

That was not obvious at all :(

> It's not supposed to be applied on net / net-next.
> Should I have sent it to stable@...r.kernel.org only?

Why woudlu a commit only be relevent for older kernels and not the
latest one?

thanks,

greg k-h