On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 20:19 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:00:26 +0800 Zheng Wang wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > index 4d6b3b7d6abb..ce2da5101e51 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c > > @@ -2885,6 +2885,9 @@ static int ravb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > struct ravb_private *priv = netdev_priv(ndev); > > const struct ravb_hw_info *info = priv->info; > > > > + netif_carrier_off(ndev); > > + netif_tx_disable(ndev); > > + cancel_work_sync(&priv->work); > > Still racy, the carrier can come back up after canceling the work. I must admit I don't see how/when this driver sets the carrier on ?!? > But whatever, this is a non-issue in the first place. Do you mean the UaF can't happen? I think that is real. > The fact that ravb_tx_timeout_work doesn't take any locks seems much > more suspicious. Indeed! But that should be a different patch, right? Waiting a little more for feedback from renesas. /P
