On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 02:27:56PM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > A FenceCallbackRegistration can stem from another party than the one > that has created a Fence. Should that party forget the registration > object (for example through a refcount cycle) and then unload the > module, a fence signaling would run into the unloaded module, causing > UAF bugs. > > So far, this has been solved by demanding that the payload data of the > registration object demanding static lifetime. > > It turns out, however, that this is harmful because the static lifetime > bubbles up to all users, ultimately potentially causing a large amount > of driver data to be static, which renders the lifetime obsolete. > > Solve this issue instead through an unsafe requirement which demands > that the user does not forget the registration object. This is also the > solution chosen by ScopedWork. > > Suggested-by: Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Onur Özkan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <[email protected]> Applied to drm-rust-next. Thanks!
