[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Julia Lawall <> wrote:

>> From commit 49d200deaa68 ("debugfs: prevent access to removed files' private
>> data"):
>> Upon return of debugfs_remove()/debugfs_remove_recursive(), it might
>> still be attempted to access associated private file data through
>> previously opened struct file objects. If that data has been freed by
>> the caller of debugfs_remove*() in the meanwhile, the reading/writing
>> process would either encounter a fault or, if the memory address in
>> question has been reassigned again, unrelated data structures could get
>> overwritten.
>> [...]
>> Currently, there are ~1000 call sites of debugfs_create_file() spread
>> throughout the whole tree and touching all of those struct file_operations
>> in order to make them file removal aware by means of checking the result of
>> debugfs_use_file_start() from within their methods is unfeasible.
>> Instead, wrap the struct file_operations by a lifetime managing proxy at
>> file open [...]
>> The additional overhead comes in terms of additional memory needed: for
>> debugs files created through debugfs_create_file(), one such struct
>> file_operations proxy is allocated for each struct file instantiation,
>> c.f. full_proxy_open().
>> This was needed to "repair" the ~1000 call sites without touching them.
>> New debugfs users should make their file_operations removal aware
>> themselves by means of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() and signal that fact to
>> the debugfs core by instantiating them through
>> debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
>> See commit c64688081490 ("debugfs: add support for self-protecting
>> attribute file fops") for further information.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Nicolai!

> Thanks. Perhaps it would be good to add a reference to this commit in
> the message generated by the semantic patch.

Yes, that would be very helpful indeed.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-30 17:40    [W:1.927 / U:2.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site