From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: github@szelinsky.de
Cc: o.rempel@pengutronix.de, kory.maincent@bootlin.com,
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, hkallweit1@gmail.com,
linux@armlinux.org.uk, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, corey@leavitt.info,
jelonek.jonas@gmail.com, horms@kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/3] net: phy: own phydev->psec via PSE notifier and remove fwnode_mdio hook
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 09:10:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260703071025.100797-1-pabeni@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260630091125.3162481-4-github@szelinsky.de>
From: AI Reviewer <ai@example.com>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
Full review at: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/
---
Now I have all the information I need. Let me produce the report.
commit da23b745f9e416f319d1edba4054506a8dabbe37
Author: Corey Leavitt <corey@leavitt.info>
Subject: net: phy: own phydev->psec via PSE notifier and remove fwnode_mdio hook
This patch moves ownership of phydev->psec from fwnode_mdio into the phy
subsystem via a PSE notifier, defers the final pse_control_put() from
phy_device_remove() to phy_device_release(), and adds a
phy_device_register_locked() variant for callers that already hold rtnl.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/e00048dd-1ed3-40c3-9912-59bccf015ad5@gmail.com/
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> index 0615228459ef..f5febff4b00b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
> @@ -223,8 +223,19 @@ static void phy_mdio_device_free(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
>
> static void phy_device_release(struct device *dev)
> {
> + struct phy_device *phydev = to_phy_device(dev);
> +
> + /* bus_for_each_dev() holds get_device() across each iteration
> + * step, deferring this release callback until any in-flight PSE
> + * notifier walk has advanced past this phy. pse_control_put()
> + * takes pse_list_mutex, so this path must run in sleepable
> + * context.
> + */
> + might_sleep();
> + pse_control_put(phydev->psec);
> +
> fwnode_handle_put(dev->fwnode);
> - kfree(to_phy_device(dev));
> + kfree(phydev);
> }
[High]
Can this combine with the PSE_UNREGISTERED walk to leave a use-after-free
window for phys that have already been device_del()'d but still have an
outstanding reference?
The notifier walks the bus klist:
case PSE_UNREGISTERED:
rtnl_lock();
bus_for_each_dev(&mdio_bus_type, NULL, data,
phy_pse_detach_one);
rtnl_unlock();
bus_for_each_dev() iterates subsys_private's klist_devices, and
device_del() -> bus_remove_device() -> klist_del() unlinks the device
from that klist. A phy that has been removed from the bus but is still
pinned (for example by a netdev that took get_device() via
phy_attach_direct()) is no longer reachable from this walk, so
phy_pse_detach_one() will not clear its phydev->psec.
> @@ -1152,8 +1299,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(phy_device_register);
> void phy_device_remove(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> unregister_mii_timestamper(phydev->mii_ts);
> - pse_control_put(phydev->psec);
> -
> device_del(&phydev->mdio.dev);
>
> /* Assert the reset signal */
[High]
Previously phy_device_remove() performed pse_control_put() synchronously
before device_del(), so the put always ran while phydev->psec still
pointed at a live pcdev. After this change the put is deferred to
phy_device_release(), which only runs when the last device reference is
dropped.
Consider this sequence on two CPUs:
CPU A (phy teardown) CPU B (rmmod PSE driver)
-------------------------------- -----------------------------------
phy_detach()
/* netdev still pins phydev */
phy_device_remove()
device_del() /* off klist */
pse_controller_unregister()
blocking_notifier_call_chain(
PSE_UNREGISTERED)
phy_pse_notifier_event()
bus_for_each_dev(mdio_bus_type,
..., phy_pse_detach_one)
/* phydev not on klist,
* phydev->psec not cleared */
pse_release_pis()
kfree(pcdev->pi)
/* later, last ref dropped */
phy_device_release()
pse_control_put(phydev->psec)
__pse_control_release()
pcdev->pi[psec->id].admin_state_enabled
/* UAF: pcdev->pi already freed */
module_put(psec->pcdev->owner)
Does the commit message paragraph
"The final pse_control_put() of phydev->psec moves from
phy_device_remove() to phy_device_release(), so it runs only after
every reference on the device -- including the bus-iterator
references taken by bus_for_each_dev() in the notifier walk -- has
been dropped."
cover the case where a phy is already off the bus klist before the
notifier fires? bus_for_each_dev() only holds get_device() on devices
it can reach via the klist, so a phy that has been device_del()'d but
is still pinned by some other holder (an attached netdev being the
typical case) is invisible to phy_pse_detach_one().
Similarly, when an MDIO bus is torn down (mdiobus_unregister() walks
its phys and calls phy_device_remove() on each), is there any guarantee
that no consumer is still holding a reference that would carry the
phy past device_del() and into a later phy_device_release()?
If this race is reachable, would it be safer to keep the
pse_control_put() in phy_device_remove() (or somewhere else that runs
before device_del() returns), so the put cannot outlive any
pcdev->pi[] that PSE_UNREGISTERED is about to free?
--
This is an AI-generated review.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-03 7:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-30 9:11 [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] net: pse-pd: decouple controller lookup from MDIO probe Carlo Szelinsky
2026-06-30 9:11 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/3] net: pse-pd: add notifier chain for controller lifecycle events Carlo Szelinsky
2026-06-30 9:11 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] net: pse-pd: fire lifecycle events on controller register/unregister Carlo Szelinsky
2026-06-30 9:11 ` [PATCH net-next v4 3/3] net: phy: own phydev->psec via PSE notifier and remove fwnode_mdio hook Carlo Szelinsky
2026-07-03 7:10 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2026-07-03 21:06 ` Carlo Szelinsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260703071025.100797-1-pabeni@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=corey@leavitt.info \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=github@szelinsky.de \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jelonek.jonas@gmail.com \
--cc=kory.maincent@bootlin.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox