netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: time stamping fixes

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, 19 Oct 2011 14:33:42 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: time stamping fixes

Le mercredi 19 octobre 2011 à 13:50 +0200, Richard Cochran a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:15:36AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > The only thing I'm not completely sure about is whether or not it is
> > permissible to sock_hold() at that point. I'm probably just missing
> > something, but: if sk_free() was called before hard_start_xmit() which
> > will call skb_clone_tx_timestamp(), can we really call sock_hold()?
> > 

This is not possible, or something is really broken.


> > The reason I ask is that sock_wfree() doesn't check sk_refcnt, so if it
> > is possible for sk_free() to have been called before hard_start_xmit(),
> > maybe because the packet was stuck on the qdisc for a while, the socket
> > won't be released (sk_free checks sk_wmem_alloc) but the sk_wfree() when
> > the original skb is freed will actually free the socket, invalidating
> > the clone's sk pointer *even though* we called sock_hold() right after
> > making the clone.
> > 
> > So what guarantees that sk_refcnt is still non-zero when we make the
> > clone?
> 
> In the non-qdisc path, the kernel is in a send() call, so the initial
> reference taken in socket() is held.
> 
> I really don't know the qdisc code, whether it is somehow holding the
> skb->sk indirectly or not.
> 
> Eric? David?

I dont really understand what's the problem, since sk_free() doesnt care
at all about sk_refcnt, but sk_wmem_alloc.

If one skb is in flight, and still linked to a socket, then this socket
cannot disappear, because this skb->truesize was accounted into
sk->sk_wmem_alloc

Of course, this point is valid as long as skb had not been orphaned.

And this is true 

--
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