On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 12:03:54PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Sun Sep 27, 2026 at 11:55 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > On Sun Sep 27, 2026 at 10:03 AM CEST, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >> Commit fcbfaffee51a ("driver core: add TAINT_FORCED_BIND for when > >> userspace manually messes with devices and drivers") introduced a taint > >> for usage of bind/unbind sysfs files that manually trigger driver probe > >> and remove respectively. > >> > >> For drivers that do their resource management correctly (which is also > >> needed for module unloading) bind and unbind for matching devices are > >> not critical operations. The thing that makes bind and unbind unsafe is > >> that drivers can be forced on devices that originally don't match using > >> driver_override. The result is that e.g. of_device_get_match_data() > >> returns NULL despite all .of_match_table entries having a non-NULL > >> .driver_data member which yields a NULL pointer exception for several > >> drivers. And given that after setting a driver_override a manual bind is > >> only one way a driver can be bound to an unexpected device, a separate > >> taint for such an override is justified. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan > >> Reviewed-by: Armin Wolf > >> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König > > > > Suggested-by: Danilo Krummrich > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/driver-core/DLIL9H50MALI.3JROXYEEUM3KU@kernel.org/ I came up with the idea on my own, but ok, will add that reference. > >> diff --git a/drivers/base/bus.c b/drivers/base/bus.c > >> index c51ad96d4de4..7d5dc016a457 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/base/bus.c > >> +++ b/drivers/base/bus.c > >> @@ -513,6 +513,7 @@ static ssize_t driver_override_store(struct device *dev, > >> { > >> int ret; > >> > >> + add_taint_module(NULL, TAINT_DRIVER_OVERRIDE, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK); > >> ret = __device_set_driver_override(dev, buf, count); > > > > There are buses (such as SPI) which unfortunately have to call > > __device_set_driver_override() directly. > > > > I think it would be better to move the taint into __device_set_driver_override() > > and properly document the purpose of __device_set_driver_override(). > > Of course I meant to say to create a new forwarding function for this purpose, > such that we do not taint for device_set_driver_override(). What is the rationale to exclude device_set_driver_override()? For the dynamic spi device creation I like it to trigger the taint. For sound/soc/samsung/i2s.c it looks as if device_set_driver_override() is just the lazy way to make the created device bind and there is no reason to stick to normal binding. And why does it call device_attach()? Shouldn't that trigger automatically after platform_device_add()? Also in drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c the call to device_set_driver_override() seems redundant. > Maybe device_store_driver_override() or device_set_driver_override_store()? > > > It only exists as SPI and AP are a bit special; both print "\n" when > > driver_override is not set, whereas all other buses (and thus the driver-core) > > produce "(null)\n" in this case. I.e. it should never get any new users. I guess it's API and thus hardly changable, but I like "\n" better, and if it's only because "(null)" might be a driver name and there is no way to distinguish the situation after echo '(null)' > driver_override from the normal state. Best regards Uwe