* Re: [net] net: enc28j60: fix use-after-free on remove
2026-08-29 20:35 [PATCH net] net: enc28j60: fix use-after-free on remove Shengzhuo Wei
@ 2026-09-02 12:37 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: netdev-bot+sashiko @ 2026-09-02 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: me
Cc: andrew+netdev, davem, edumazet, kuba, pabeni, lanconelli.claudio,
jeff, netdev, linux-kernel, stable
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
issue(s) to consider:
Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0
- [Medium] The deferred work items are never quiesced before the
controller is powered down, and the patch adds the cancels only at the…
--
net: enc28j60: fix use-after-free on remove
enc28j60_remove() now unregisters the netdev, frees the IRQ, cancels the
tx_work, setrx_work and restart_work items, and frees a leftover tx skb
before calling free_netdev().
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c
> index d6c9491537e4..d16564060fbc 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c
> @@ -1602,6 +1602,11 @@ static void enc28j60_remove(struct spi_device *spi)
>
> unregister_netdev(priv->netdev);
> free_irq(spi->irq, priv);
> + cancel_work_sync(&priv->tx_work);
> + cancel_work_sync(&priv->setrx_work);
> + cancel_work_sync(&priv->restart_work);
[Severity: Medium]
Is the placement of these cancels after unregister_netdev() and
free_irq() intentional?
unregister_netdev() runs dev_close(), and enc28j60_net_close() puts the
part to sleep without quiescing any of the works:
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c:enc28j60_net_close() {
enc28j60_hw_disable(priv);
enc28j60_lowpower(priv, true);
netif_stop_queue(dev);
}
So a tx_work queued earlier by enc28j60_send_packet() can still run
during the cancel_work_sync() above, and enc28j60_hw_tx() has no
priv->hw_enable or netif_running() gate before it touches the chip:
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c:enc28j60_hw_tx() {
enc28j60_packet_write(priv, priv->tx_skb->len, priv->tx_skb->data);
...
/* set TX request flag */
locked_reg_bfset(priv, ECON1, ECON1_TXRTS);
}
Can that leave ECON1.TXRTS asserted after ECON2.PWRSV has already been
set? enc28j60_lowpower() itself encodes the opposite ordering:
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c:enc28j60_lowpower() {
nolock_reg_bfclr(priv, ECON1, ECON1_RXEN);
poll_ready(priv, ESTAT, ESTAT_RXBUSY, 0);
poll_ready(priv, ECON1, ECON1_TXRTS, 0);
/* ECON2_VRPS was set during initialization */
nolock_reg_bfset(priv, ECON2, ECON2_PWRSV);
}
With EIE zeroed by enc28j60_hw_disable() and the IRQ already freed, is
there anything left that can retire that transmit? The only place that
clears TXRTS and wakes the queue is reachable solely from
enc28j60_irq():
drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/enc28j60.c:enc28j60_tx_clear() {
locked_reg_bfclr(priv, ECON1, ECON1_TXRTS);
netif_wake_queue(ndev);
}
The same missing quiesce also applies to the plain "ip link set ethX
down" case, where nothing cancels tx_work or setrx_work at all, so a
deferred transmit or an ERXFCON update can hit a powered-down chip, and
a late tx_work can arm TXRTS while a subsequent enc28j60_net_open() is
running the enc28j60_hw_init() soft reset and txfifo init (priv->lock is
only held per register access, not across that state transition).
Would it make sense to cancel the hardware-touching works while the
interface is still up, for instance in enc28j60_net_close() or in a
helper shared by close and remove, and/or re-quiesce the chip after the
cancels so both teardown paths follow the same rule?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260830-enc28j60-cancel-works-v1-1-4c40f17d401e%40cherr.cc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread