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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260204201914.73fec717@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 20:19:14 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: haokexin@...il.com
Cc: horms@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev,
 elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net, byungchul@...com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 h-mittal1@...com, danishanwar@...com, pabeni@...hat.com, m-malladi@...com,
 jacob.e.keller@...el.com, rogerq@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next,1/2] net: ti: icssg-prueth-sr1: Remove unused
 workqueue

On Wed,  4 Feb 2026 20:17:02 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > @@ -883,8 +878,6 @@
> >
> >  free:
> >  	pruss_release_mem_region(prueth->pruss, &emac->dram);
> > -free_wq:
> > -	destroy_workqueue(emac->cmd_wq);
> >  free_ndev:
> >  	emac->ndev = NULL;
> >  	prueth->emac[mac] = NULL;  
> 
> Removing the workqueue creation here is fine for the SR1 driver's own error
> path, but doesn't the shared cleanup function prueth_netdev_exit() in
> icssg_common.c still call destroy_workqueue(emac->cmd_wq) unconditionally?
> 
> void prueth_netdev_exit(struct prueth *prueth, ...)
> {
>     ...
>     pruss_release_mem_region(prueth->pruss, &emac->dram);
>     destroy_workqueue(emac->cmd_wq);
>     free_netdev(emac->ndev);
>     ...
> }
> 
> Since emac is zero-initialized from alloc_netdev_mqs(), emac->cmd_wq will be
> NULL after this patch. Can this cause a NULL pointer dereference in
> destroy_workqueue() on module unload, since destroy_workqueue() does not
> check for NULL?

Maybe it's not worth separating the removal into two patches if there
are surprising dependencies here? Squash them into one for v2 perhaps?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ