From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c: dev: clean up registration
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 14:07:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <avMW-hz61zXUbQWV@hovoldconsulting.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <r7a57zw5h253lhdecxdoagdcok4lobodiouutxxq3t237imdhy@n4t46uvgvf22>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 01:54:18PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 01:42:29PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > I had rejected that Sashiko finding as being too outlandish for us to
> > have to worry about. As I just in a reply to Bartosz:
> >
> > If a malicious actor has physical access to the machine, we have
> > bigger problems than worrying about them going out of their way
> > to cause a USB hub worker thread to hang. :)
> >
> > Limiting the critical section can possibly be done as a follow-up, but
> > it may not even be worth the effort doing that.
> >
>
> Why is limiting the scope of the semaphore such a big deal though? It's
> not a big change, literally just use scoped_guard() instead. Why would
> we commit incorrect code if we can correct it in a v3 with not much
> effort? You're fixing a use-case where user-space can hang a kernel
> thread, why not do it for corner-cases too?
A *malicious* actor with physical access (and CAP_SYS_PTRACE) can cause
a thread to hang while janking out an USB attached I2C adapter out a of
machine if they try really hard. Don't you see how silly that is?
I posted this patch months ago, but IIRC it will complicate things
somewhat without any relevant benefit. Probably just a larger diff which
is unnecessary for a patch marked for stable.
If Wolfram insists, I can revisit this, but I don't think it's needed.
Johan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-27 10:20 [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c: dev: fix blocked adapter deregistration Johan Hovold
2026-08-27 10:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] " Johan Hovold
2026-11-09 15:08 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-11-10 12:34 ` Johan Hovold
2026-08-27 10:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] i2c: dev: drop unnecessary sysfs device lookup Johan Hovold
2026-11-09 14:59 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-11-10 11:46 ` Wolfram Sang
2026-08-27 10:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c: dev: clean up registration Johan Hovold
2026-11-09 15:01 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-11-10 11:50 ` Wolfram Sang
2026-11-10 12:42 ` Johan Hovold
2026-11-10 12:54 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-11-10 13:07 ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2026-11-04 19:42 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c: dev: fix blocked adapter deregistration Wolfram Sang
2026-11-05 8:18 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=avMW-hz61zXUbQWV@hovoldconsulting.com \
--to=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=brgl@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®