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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190204220952.30761-1-TheSven73@googlemail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJ0g1FUd3mX=RkJCN=BazaWWybAuapvjngpLcWtz3FQGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGngYiUsq55EUKa0rYCeQ62VanhwNUxs-pfkJxUwqd4HO3m-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190205184355.GC22198@kroah.com> <CAGngYiUMuM_ZxHKVWRihDHZcMncvTwR6Sz1zGNJLrGpyhhT1uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190206164657.GC8466@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190206164657.GC8466@kroah.com>
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:30:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKdAkRQbCj59_Cw2RqpyDEU2zzn4ajOjXF44NE2LJ7QB8-DLtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/3] Address potential user-after-free on module unload
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:47 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 02:12:31PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:43 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It really should happen when the device is removed (if it is a driver
> > > that binds to a device.)
> >
> > Absolutely. That's why I'm advocating adding a devm_init_work(),
> > which will take care of this automatically.
> >
> > But it's of course not universally applicable. Not all drivers use devm.
>
> Ick, no, watch out for devm() calls.  Odds are this is _NOT_ what you
> want to do for a device.  Remember when devm calls get freed (hint, not
> at driver unbind/unload, but at device structure removal.


??? We unwind devm on probe() failure and after remove() is called.
The device can live on.

>
>
> By creating a work queue, you are suddenly tying module code to a device
> memory structure lifespan, both of which are totally independant.
>
> It's the same issue with the devm irq call, that has been nothing but a
> nightmare as everyone gets it wrong.  Try to learn from our past
> mistakes please :)


Yeah. But devm irq gave most trouble because we did not have enough
devm APIs so we often ended up with mixed devm/non-devm usage and that
is what was causing most of the issues. If we can switch everything to
devm then devm irq is not that troublesome.

I have 2+ drivers that currently use devm_add_action_or_reset() to
install action canceling work, they could be switched to
devm_init_work().

Thanks,

-- 
Dmitry