On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 19:20:06 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > On November 15, 2023 4:00:46 PM Zheng Hacker <hackerzheng666@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2023年11月13日周一 17:18写道： > >> > >> On November 8, 2023 4:03:26 AM Zheng Hacker <hackerzheng666@xxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2023年11月6日周一 23:48写道： > >>>> > >>>> On November 6, 2023 3:44:53 PM Zheng Hacker <hackerzheng666@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks! I didn't test it for I don't have a device. Very appreciated > >>>>> if anyone could help with that. > >>>> > >>>> I would volunteer, but it made me dig deep and not sure if there is a > >>>> problem to solve here. > >>>> > >>>> brcmf_cfg80211_detach() calls wl_deinit_priv() -> brcmf_abort_scanning() -> > >>>> brcmf_notify_escan_complete() which does delete the timer. > >>>> > >>>> What am I missing here? > >>> > >>> Thanks four your detailed review. I did see the code and not sure if > >>> brcmf_notify_escan_complete > >>> would be triggered for sure. So in the first version I want to delete > >>> the pending timer ahead of time. > >> > >> Why requesting a CVE when you are not sure? Seems a bit hasty to put it > >> mildly. > > > > I'm sure the issue exists because there's only cancler of timer but not woker. > > As there's similar CVEs before like : https://github.com/V4bel/CVE-2022-41218, > > I submit it as soon as I found it. > > Ah, yes. The cancel_work_sync() can also be done in > brcmf_notify_escan_complete(). AFAIUC, brcmf_notify_scan_complete() is called from the work itself, too, hence you can't issue cancel_work_sync() there (unless you make it conditional). Takashi
