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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:46:40 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: ratheesh kannoth <ratheesh.ksz@...il.com> Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-newbie <linux-newbie@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sock_hold and sock_put On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:47 +0530, ratheesh kannoth wrote: > Hi list, > > There is a comment on sock_hold() function - > > 561 /* Grab socket reference count. This operation is valid only > 562 when sk is ALREADY grabbed f.e. it is found in hash table > 563 or a list and the lookup is made under lock preventing hash table > 564 modifications. > 565 */ > > > But i could see instances of sock hold() in kernel without any locks. > > > How the race between sock_hold() and sock_put() is prevented in smp ? > > note: I would like to use sock_hold() and sock_put() in > netdev_notifier chain call back functions. You misunderstood the comment. Comment only stated that sock_hold() must be used in contexts where caller owns a reference (and will eventually release it later with sock_put(). There is nothing about having a lock here. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists