From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>
To: "Gui-Dong Han" <hanguidong02@gmail.com>
Cc: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <rafael@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>,
"Qiu-ji Chen" <chenqiuji666@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] driver core: fix use-after-free of driver_override via driver_match_device()
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:55:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DFNDDIDN1RP0.169QKL6P2WU77@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251127145753.13080-1-hanguidong02@gmail.com>
On Thu Nov 27, 2025 at 3:57 PM CET, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/base/base.h b/drivers/base/base.h
> index 86fa7fbb3548..72791125de91 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/base.h
> +++ b/drivers/base/base.h
> @@ -166,6 +166,9 @@ void device_set_deferred_probe_reason(const struct device *dev, struct va_format
> static inline int driver_match_device(const struct device_driver *drv,
> struct device *dev)
> {
> + /* Protects against driver_set_override() races */
> + device_lock_assert(dev);
> +
> return drv->bus->match ? drv->bus->match(dev, drv) : 1;
> }
I am not convinced that this is the correct fix, since
1. Not all match() callbacks access the driver_override field,
2. driver_override is accessed in other places as well,
3. driver_override is a bus device specific field (with a common
helper admittedly).
I think it would be better to make driver_override a field in the base
struct device. This way we can not only provide driver_set_override(), but also
driver_get_override(), which should contain the device_lock_assert() instead.
While not all devices require the driver_override field, an additional pointer
in struct device does not hurt and it clarifies ownership and hence locking.
- Danilo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-13 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-27 14:57 [PATCH v3] driver core: fix use-after-free of driver_override via driver_match_device() Gui-Dong Han
2026-01-13 9:55 ` Danilo Krummrich [this message]
2026-01-13 11:08 ` Danilo Krummrich
2026-01-13 12:42 ` Gui-Dong Han
2026-01-13 13:34 ` Danilo Krummrich
2026-01-13 13:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-01-13 14:05 ` Gui-Dong Han
2026-01-13 14:20 ` Danilo Krummrich
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=DFNDDIDN1RP0.169QKL6P2WU77@kernel.org \
--to=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=chenqiuji666@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hanguidong02@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/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