netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V3] net: dynamic ingress

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, 04 Oct 2010 14:52:00 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3] net: dynamic ingress_queue allocation

Le lundi 04 octobre 2010 à 14:06 +0200, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :

> Right, but then at least in qdisc_lookup():
> 
> if (dev_ingress_queue(dev))
> 	q = qdisc_match_from_root(dev_ingress_queue(dev), handle);
> 
> you should use a variable instead of the second dereference (rtnl isn't
> mandatory here).

I am lost.

If rntl is not mandatory, what is the lock that protects us ?

qdisc_lookup() _is_ called under the protection of a lock.
Or as soon as we return from it, result could change under us.

Please name it, and I'll use it :

rcu_dereference_protected(dev->ingress_queue, lockdep_is_held(THISLOCK))



--
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