quoted

quoted

GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK, and you can check it in the caller, before
taking rtnl_lock.

OK, np. The idea was to have module_flash_fw() that checks the attrs
and extract them into params and ethnl_act_module_fw_flash() should be
free from those checks. But if so, maybe this separation is redundant
and should combine the two?

No strong preference, whatever looks better :) To use
GENL_REQ_ATTR_CHECK() I think you'll need to pass genl_info here.
You can either to that or move the validation.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+

tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME],

quoted

+				    "File name attribute is missing");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	params.file_name =
+		nla_data(tb[ETHTOOL_A_MODULE_FW_FLASH_FILE_NAME]);

Hm. I think you copy the param struct by value to the work container.
nla_data() is in the skb which is going to get freed after _ACT returns.
So if anyone tries to access the name from the work it's going to UAF?

The file_name parameter is not really needed inside the work. Once we
called request_firmware_direct(), we have all that we need in
module_fw->fw. Do we still need to avoid that situation? If so, can
you please suggest how?

I'd pass it to module_flash_fw_schedule() as a separate argument, if it doesn't
have to be saved.

It doesn’t make the module_fw->file_name attribute redundant?