linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] driver/net: add missing rtnl lock/unlock for benet

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:59:56 +0000
From:	"Li, Zhen-Hua" <zhen-hual@...com>
To:	Sathya Perla <Sathya.Perla@...lex.Com>
CC:	Subramanian Seetharaman <subbu.seetharaman@...lex.com>,
	Ajit Khaparde <Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] driver/net: add missing rtnl lock/unlock for benet

Yes, that's ok for me.

发自我的 iPhone

在 2014年4月15日，下午7:57，"Sathya Perla" <Sathya.Perla@...lex.Com> 写道：

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Li, ZhenHua [mailto:zhen-hual@...com]
>> 
>> Because netif_running() is called in netif_device_detach and
>> netif_device_attach. To avoid dev status changed while
>> netif_device_detach/attach is not finished, I think a rtnl_lock and
>> unlock should be called to avoid this.
> 
> Ok. I'd like to then factor the code slightly differently by using
> routines like this:
> 
> be_close_sync() {
>    rtnl_lock();
> 
>      netif_device_detach(netdev);
>       if (netif_running(netdev))
>           be_close(netdev);
> 
>    rtnl_unlock();
> }
> 
> and similarly for be_open_sync()
> 
> And, I'd need some time to test these flows too.
> Would you be OK with this?
> 
> thanks,
> -Sathya