netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

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:	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:55:00 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	cwang@...pensource.com
Cc:	jay.vosburgh@...onical.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	wen.gang.wang@...cle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:17:12 -0800

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Jay Vosburgh
> <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> wrote:
>> Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Also, no one seems to care about my previous question:
>>>why only bonding has the problem?
>>
>>         Bonding has the problem because it stashes a pointer to a data
>> structure (the header_ops) from another module, and when that module is
>> unloaded the dangling pointer may be dereferenced if it's not either
>> cleared or made to never go away.
> 
> I knew, please re-read my question, I was asking why ONLY bonding
> has the problem, i.e. why not neigh or whatever else calling
> header_ops->foo()? :)

They are either static only (ipv4) or cannot be unloaded as a module
after being loaded (ipv6).
--
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