On November 16, 2023 7:25:16 PM Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 19:20:06 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
On November 15, 2023 4:00:46 PM Zheng Hacker hackerzheng666@gmail.com wrote:
Arend van Spriel arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com 于2023年11月13日周一 17:18写道：
On November 8, 2023 4:03:26 AM Zheng Hacker hackerzheng666@gmail.com wrote:
Arend Van Spriel arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com 于2023年11月6日周一 23:48写道：
On November 6, 2023 3:44:53 PM Zheng Hacker hackerzheng666@gmail.com 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).
Hi Takashi,
You are obviously right. Let's wait and see what v6 will look like ;-)
Regards, Arend