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: <2024041746-heritage-annex-3b66@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:43:27 +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 09:16:04AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> 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?

Without showing what commit id this is in Linus's tree, no.

> >> 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.

Then a hint as to what the git id of that commit is would help out a lot
here.

Thanks,

greg k-h