linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO #5 18/18] LSM expansion for TOMOYO Linux.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:39:41 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #5 18/18] LSM expansion for TOMOYO Linux.

On Monday 19 November 2007 9:29:52 am Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > If that is the case then the second call to
> > skb_peek() will return a different skb then the one you passed to
> > security_post_recv_datagram().
>
> Yes. The second call to skb_peek() might return a different skb than the
> one I passed to security_post_recv_datagram().

My apologies, I mistakenly read the following if statement in your patch:

 +       if (skb == skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
 +               __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue);
 +               atomic_dec(&skb->users);
 +       }

I read the conditional as the following:

 +       if (skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {

... which would have caused the problems I was describing.  I'm sorry for all 
of the confusion/frustration, you patient explanations are correct; I was 
wrong in this particular case.

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/