netdev - Re: v4 [PATCH 1/9] af_packet: Check return of dev_set

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:	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	wangchen@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v4 [PATCH 1/9] af_packet: Check return of
 dev_set_promiscuity/allmulti

From: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:59:09 +0800

> dev_set_promiscuity/allmulti might overflow.
> Commit: "netdevice: Fix promiscuity and allmulti overflow" in net-next makes
> dev_set_promiscuity/allmulti return error number if overflow happened.
> 
> In af_packet, we check all positive increment for promiscuity and allmulti
> to get error return.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
> Acked-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> 

Applied, thanks.

What are the exact locking rules for po->mclist btw?  Obviously
changes to the list are RTNL protected, but what about readers?

If readers lock differently, this error recovery where we unlink 'i'
could cause an OOPS.  It is ok to add new elements while allowing
readers to traverse independantly but removal needs to interlock with
such readers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html