Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:15:17 +0200
From:   "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     'Johannes Berg' <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "nstange@suse.de" <nstange@suse.de>,
        "ap420073@gmail.com" <ap420073@gmail.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] debugfs: protect against rmmod while files are open
Message-ID: <20201009111517.GA508813@kroah.com>
References: <4a58caee3b6b8975f4ff632bf6d2a6673788157d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <20201009124113.a723e46a677a.Ib6576679bb8db01eb34d3dce77c4c6899c28ce26@changeid>
 <2a333c2a50c676c461c1e2da5847dd4024099909.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <8fe62082d9774a1fb21894c27e140318@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8fe62082d9774a1fb21894c27e140318@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 10:56:16AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg
> > Sent: 09 October 2020 11:48
> > 
> > On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 12:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > 
> > > If the fops doesn't have a release method, we don't even need
> > > to keep a reference to the real_fops, we can just fops_put()
> > > them already in debugfs remove, and a later full_proxy_release()
> > > won't call anything anyway - this just crashed/UAFed because it
> > > used real_fops, not because there was actually a (now invalid)
> > > release() method.
> > 
> > I actually implemented something a bit better than what I described - we
> > never need a reference to the real_fops for the release method alone,
> > and that means if the release method is in the kernel image, rather than
> > a module, it can still be called.
> > 
> > That together should reduce the ~117 places you changed in the large
> > patchset to around a handful.
> 
> Is there an equivalent problem for normal cdev opens
> in any modules?

What does cdev have to do with debugfs?