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: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:50:55 +0000 From: Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@...wei.com> To: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] net/packet: fix race condition between fanout_add and __unregister_prot_hook On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote: > > In case of failure we also need to unlink and free match. I > sent the following: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/813945/ + spin_lock(&po->bind_lock); + if (po->running && + match->type == type && match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type && match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) { err = -ENOSPC; @@ -1761,6 +1760,13 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, u16 id, u16 type_flags) err = 0; } } + spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock); + + if (err && !refcount_read(&match->sk_ref)) { + list_del(&match->list); + kfree(match); + } In the function fanout_add add spin_lock to protect po-> running and po-> fanout, then whether it should be in the function fanout_release also add spin_lock protection ? static struct packet_fanout *fanout_release(struct sock *sk) .... mutex_lock(&fanout_mutex); f = po->fanout; if (f) { po->fanout = NULL;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists