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: <17a3f8cb-26d4-4185-8e8b-0040ed62ae77@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:16:04 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 17.04.2024 09:04, Greg KH wrote:
> 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 :(
> 
Stating "Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 6.8.x" isn't sufficient?

>> 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?
> 
The fix version for 6.9-rc and next has been applied already.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h