[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156091451.23756.51.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:30:51 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking
> We're on UP. sys_getsockopt() does get_user() (due to the patch) and
> makes sure that the passed *optlen is sane. Even if this get_user()
> sleeps, the value it returns in "len" is what's currently in memory at
> the time of the get_user() return (correct?) Then an underlying
> *getsockopt() function does another get_user() on optlen (same address),
> without doing any other user-space data accesses or anything else that
> could sleep first. Is it possible that this second get_user()
> invocation would sleep? I think not since it's the same address that
> we've just read a value from, we did not leave kernel space, and we're
> on UP (so no other processor could have changed the mapping). So the
> patch appears to be sufficient for this special case (which is not
> unlikely).
this reasoning goes out the window with kernel preemption of course ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists