netdev - What protects rcu_dereference() in __sk

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:41:08 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	dim@...nvz.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: What protects rcu_dereference() in __sk_free()?

Hello, Dmitry,

Could you please tell me what protects the rcu_dereference() in
__sk_free()?  I am adding lockdep-based checking to RCU, and
"git blame" said I should ask you about this one.

The current code, rcu_dereference(), assumes that this is protected only
by RCU-bh.  My problem might be any of the following:

o	Some other flavor of RCU protects this, e.g., RCU-sched, which
	would require rcu_dereference_sched() in place of my current
	rcu_dereference_bh() for RCU-bh.

o	This is called from updates as well as from readers, and
	some lock protects the updates.

o	This is called during initialization, when this pointer is
	inaccessible to readers.

Please note that I can add a check to cover multiple possibilities.
For a real example in include/linux/fdtable.h:

	file = rcu_dereference_check(fdt->fd[fd],
				     rcu_read_lock_held() ||
				     lockdep_is_held(&files->file_lock) ||
				     atomic_read(&files->count) == 1);

The first argument is the pointer, and the second argument says that
this may be protected by either RCU (as opposed to RCU-bh, RCU-sched,
or SRCU), the files->file_lock as recorded by lockdep, or by being in
a single-threaded process as noted by the value of files->count.
(Please see http://lwn.net/Articles/368683/ for a recent patch, another
will go out soon.)

So, could you please tell me what protects the rcu_dereference() in
__sk_free() so that I can craft the appropriate form of rcu_dereference()?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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