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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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