Re: [PATCH] dma-fence: Correct return of dma_fence_driver_name()

[Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>]

On 10/24/25 2:40 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> You trim too much of the quote making it unclear if you read the whole story.

I'm well aware of the context.
> If the driver isn't detached from the signalled fence then it is vulnerable to
> use after free.
When someone just reads "detached-driver" is creates the impression that the
driver is unbound from its device, since this is what this term is usually used for.

(And this is even the case you want to protect against, i.e. the string behind
the pointer returned by get_driver_name() has been freed.)

However, the condition that has changed when you print "driver-detached" is that
the fence has been signaled, independent of whether the driver has been detached
from the device.

Now, you can argue that you mean "driver has been detached from the fence",
which means something along the lines of "the driver has no business with the
fence anymore", but this is not what people think of when they read
"detached-driver".