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: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:03:38 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com, daniel@...earbox.net, mkubecek@...e.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] tcp: various missing rcu_read_lock around __sk_dst_get On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 18:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > Eric, what's your take on Hannes's patch 2 ? > Is it more accurate to ask lockdep to check for actual lock > or lockdep can rely on owned flag? > Potentially there could be races between setting the flag and > actual lock... but that code is contained, so unlikely. > Will we find the real issues with this 'stronger' check or > just spend a ton of time adapting to new model like your other > patch for release_sock and whatever may need to come next... More precise lockdep checks are certainly good, I only objected to 4/4 trying to work around another bug. But why do we rush for 'net' tree ? This looks net-next material to me. Locking changes are often subtle, lets take the time to do them properly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists