Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 00:27:27 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/3] max17042_battery: fix potential user-after-free on
 module unload
Message-ID: <20190205082727.GB118684@dtor-ws>
References: <20190204220952.30761-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com>
 <20190204220952.30761-3-TheSven73@googlemail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190204220952.30761-3-TheSven73@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:09:51PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> The work which is scheduled on a POR boot is potentially left
> pending or running until after the driver module is unloaded.
> 
> Fix by using resource-controlled version of INIT_WORK().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@googlemail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> index 2a8d75e5e930..a61e2b81f68a 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17042_battery.c
> @@ -1100,7 +1100,10 @@ static int max17042_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>  
>  	regmap_read(chip->regmap, MAX17042_STATUS, &val);
>  	if (val & STATUS_POR_BIT) {
> -		INIT_WORK(&chip->work, max17042_init_worker);
> +		ret = devm_init_work(&client->dev, &chip->work,
> +				max17042_init_worker);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
>  		schedule_work(&chip->work);

Are there many more instances of this? I am unsure if we need
devm_init_work() when we can easily do the same in remove() call.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry