Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 07.08.24 22:07, Rosen Penev wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 1:05 PM Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07.08.24 20:52, Rosen Penev wrote: >>>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:47 AM Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> On 31.07.24 23:02, Rosen Penev wrote: >>>> >> > Avoids having to manually call free_irq. Simplifies code slightly. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >> > --- >>>> >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c | 7 ++----- >>>> >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/pci.c | 9 +++------ >>>> >> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> >> > >>>> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c >>>> >> > index 1a6697b6e3b4..29f67ded8fe2 100644 >>>> >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c >>>> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c >>>> >> > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int ath_ahb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> >> > sc->mem = mem; >>>> >> > sc->irq = irq; >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - ret = request_irq(irq, ath_isr, IRQF_SHARED, "ath9k", sc); >>>> >> > + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, ath_isr, IRQF_SHARED, "ath9k", sc); >>>> >> Sorry for the late response, but I think this patch is wrong any may >>>> >> need to be reverted. If there is an error during probe, and the IRQ >>>> >> fires for some reason, there could be an use-after-free bug when the IRQ >>>> >> handler accesses the data in sc. >>>> >> The explicit freq_irq calls were preventing that from happening. >>>> > How about keeping the devm variant and replacing free_irq with >>>> > devm_free_irq in probe? >>>> >>>> If you do that, then using the devm variant is completely pointless. >>>> I think a full revert is the best option. >>> OTOH it still allows removing free_irq from _remove, but I see your point. >> >> No, because you'd have the same use-after-free bug there as well. > > Alright, let's revert. Kalle, can you just do the revert, or should I > send a patch for it? Thanks, the best is to send a patch. But honestly more and more I'm starting to think that we should just reject all these "drive-by cleanups". We have better things to do than fixing unnecessary their bugs. Thoughts? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
