Re: [PATCH 0/3] USB: dwc3: qcom: fix resource leaks on probe deferral

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:22:54AM -0600, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:47:30AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On 17.11.2023 18:36, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > When reviewing the recently submitted series which reworks the dwc3 qcom
> > > > glue implementation [1], I noticed that the driver's tear down handling
> > > > is currently broken, something which can lead to memory leaks and
> > > > potentially use-after-free issues on probe deferral and on driver
> > > > unbind.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's get this sorted before reworking driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the last patch has only been compile tested as I don't have
> > > > access to a sdm845 device.
> 
> > > I'll sound like a broken record, but:
> > > 
> > > is there anyone in the world that is actively benefiting from this failed
> > > experiment of using the ACPI tables that were shipped with these SoCs?
> > > 
> > > There are so so so many shortcomings associated with it due to how Windows
> > > drivers on these platforms know waaaay too much and largely use ACPI to
> > > "bind driver x" and I simply think it doesn't make sense to continue
> > > carrying this code forward given little use and no testing.
> 
> > For what it is worth, I have agreed with your opinion on this every time
> > I've read it. I am not the target audience of the question, but I'll at
> > least give my personal (interpreted: uneducated? undesired?) opinion
> > that the ACPI support in here adds little value and extra burden.
> > 
> > Of course that topic is a bit independent of this series, but I'd be
> > curious if a patchset removing the support would be welcomed or not by
> > maintainers, so I'm stirring the pot by replying here :)
> 
> I agree that if we can remove the ACPI hacks in here, we should try do
> so (e.g. given that no one really uses it anymore).
> 
> As Andrew already mentioned, that is a separate issue not directly
> related to this series, though.
> 
> Removing it before reworking the dwc3 binding [1] and adding multiport
> support [2] should simplify both of those series quite a bit, however.
> 
> Johan
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231016-dwc3-refactor-v1-0-ab4a84165470@quicinc.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231007154806.605-1-quic_kriskura@quicinc.com/
> 

So should I apply this series now or not?

confused,

greg k-h