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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:13:02 +1100
From:	Neil Brown <>
To:	"Akinobu Mita" <>
Cc:	"Trond Myklebust" <>,,
	"Andy Adamson" <>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <>,
	"Olaf Kirch" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] auth_gss: unregister gss_domain when unloading module

On Tuesday October 31, wrote:
> But I noticed that even if we have this kind of smp-safe code, there
> is no guarantee that 2nd auth_domain_put() in
> svcauth_gss_unregister_pseudoflavor() is the last reference of
> this gss_domain.
> So it is possible to happen invalid dereference by real last user of
> this gss_domain after unloading module. If this is not wrong,
> Is it neccesary to have try_get_module()/put_module() somewhere to
> prevent this?

After a quick look, it seems to me that one reasonable option would

     returns a void* which is 'new', and possible calls try_get_module(),
     failing if that fails. and
     takes the void* (not a name) and calls auth_domain_put on it, and
     then calls put_module().

  'struct pf_desc' would have to gain a
        void * handle;
  to hold the returned value.

Would that solve the problem as you see it?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists