netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select

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:	Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:04:12 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select

On 06/28, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 06/28/2009 01:10 PM:
>
> > Oleg Nesterov wrote, On 06/26/2009 04:50 PM:
> >
> >> Perhaps we can add
> >>
> >> 	void sock_poll_wait(struct file *file, struct sock *sk, poll_table *pt)
> >> 	{
> >> 		if (pt) {
> >> 			poll_wait(file, sk->sk_sleep, pt);
> >> 			/*
> >> 			 * fat comment
> >> 			 */
> >> 			smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
> >> 		}
> >> 	}
> >>
> >> Oleg.
> >
> >
> > Maybe 'a bit' further?:
> >
> > static inline void __poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> > {
> > 	p->qproc(filp, wait_address, p);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> > {
> > 	if (p && wait_address)
> > 		__poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void sock_poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> > {
> > 	if (p && wait_address) {
> > 		__poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
> > 		/*
> > 		 * fat comment
> > 		 */
> > 		smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
> > 	}
> > }
> >
>
>
> Hmm... of course:
>
> static inline void sock_poll_wait(struct file * filp, struct sock *sk, poll_table *p)
> {
>  	if (p && sk->sk_sleep) {
>  		__poll_wait(filp, sk->sk_sleep, p);
>  		/*
>  		 * fat comment
>  		 */
>  		smp_mb(); // or smp_mb__after_unlock();
>  	}
> }

Perhaps it makes sense to check ->sk_sleep != NULL in sock_poll_wait(), but
I don't think we need __poll_wait(). poll_wait() is inline, I think gcc
will optimize out "if (p && wait_address)" check if poll_wait() is called
from sock_poll_wait().

This all is up to Jiri of course. But speaking about cosmetic changes, I
think it is better to make 2 patches. The first one fixes the problem using
smp_mb(), another introduces smp_mb__xxx_lock() to optimize the code.

Oleg.

--
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