> > > GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK, and you can check it in the caller, before > > > taking rtnl_lock. > > > > > > > OK, np. The idea was to have module_flash_fw() that checks the attrs > > and extract them into params and ethnl_act_module_fw_flash() should be > > free from those checks. But if so, maybe this separation is redundant > > and should combine the two? > > No strong preference, whatever looks better :) To use > GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK() I think you'll need to pass genl_info here. > You can either to that or move the validation. > > > > > + > > > tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME], > > > > + "File name attribute is missing"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + params.file_name = > > > > + nla_data(tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME]); > > > > > > Hm. I think you copy the param struct by value to the work container. > > > nla_data() is in the skb which is going to get freed after _ACT returns. > > > So if anyone tries to access the name from the work it's going to UAF? > > > > The file_name parameter is not really needed inside the work. Once we > > called request_firmware_direct(), we have all that we need in > > module_fw->fw. Do we still need to avoid that situation? If so, can > > you please suggest how? > > I'd pass it to module_flash_fw_schedule() as a separate argument, if it doesn't > have to be saved. It doesn’t make the module_fw->file_name attribute redundant?
