netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: fix lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock

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:	Wed, 26 May 2010 22:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	anton@...ba.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:20:18 +0200

> [PATCH v2] net: fix lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh
> 
> This new sock lock primitive was introduced to speedup some user context
> socket manipulation. But it is unsafe to protect two threads, one using
> regular lock_sock/release_sock, one using lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh
> 
> This patch changes lock_sock_bh to be careful against 'owned' state.
> If owned is found to be set, we must take the slow path.
> lock_sock_bh() now returns a boolean to say if the slow path was taken,
> and this boolean is used at unlock_sock_bh time to call the appropriate
> unlock function.
> 
> After this change, BH are either disabled or enabled during the
> lock_sock_bh/unlock_sock_bh protected section. This might be misleading,
> so we rename these functions to lock_sock_fast()/unlock_sock_fast().
> 
> Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>

Looks good, I'll wait for positive testing from Anton before applying
this.
--
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