On 1/16/25 2:18 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:52:28 -0500
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex, does the above answer your question on what guards against UAF (the
short answer is: matrix_dev->mdevs_lock)?
Yes, that answers my question, thanks for untangling it. We might
consider a lockdep_assert_held() in the new
signal_guest_ap_cfg_changed() since it does get called from a variety
of paths and we need that lock to prevent the UAF.
Yes I second that! I was thinking about it myself yesterday. And there
are also a couple of other functions that expect to be called with
certain locks held. I would love to see lockdep_assert_held() there
as well.
Since I went through that code last night I could spin a patch that
catches some of these at least. But if I don't within two weeks, I
won't be grumpy if somebody else picks that up.
Sure, sounds like a good idea. Don't worry about it, I can take care of
it. Thanks.
Regards,
Halil
