On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/31/2012 12:09 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> > > @@ -720,20 +698,14 @@ error_ret: > > static int __devexit at91_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > { > > struct iio_dev *idev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > - struct resource *res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > > struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(idev); > > > > iio_device_unregister(idev); > > [...] > > - free_irq(st->irq, idev); > > [...] > > iio_device_free(idev); > > I think we have to be careful here. The interrupted is now freed after the > device has been freed, which means that it could trigger after the device > has been freed. And since we use the device in the interrupt handler we'll > get a use after free. Perhaps the same would be true in the following code, from the file drivers/edac/highbank_l2_edac.c: res = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, drvdata->sb_irq, highbank_l2_err_handler, 0, dev_name(&pdev->dev), dci); if (res < 0) goto err; dci->mod_name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); dci->dev_name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); if (edac_device_add_device(dci)) goto err; devres_close_group(&pdev->dev, NULL); return 0; err: devres_release_group(&pdev->dev, NULL); edac_device_free_ctl_info(dci); Is devm_request_irq perhaps not a very good idea? julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html