[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070418084416.GB4241@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:44:16 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...nvz.org, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [NETLINK] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:40PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov (xemul@...ru) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov (xemul@...ru) wrote:
> >> Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
> >>
> >> There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
> >> that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
> >> callback is freed.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why not to fix a netlink_dump_start() to remove
> > callback in error path, since in 'no-error' path it removes it in
>
> Error path is not relevant here. The problem is that we
> keep a calback on a socket that is about to be freed.
Yes, you are right, that it will not be freed in netlink_release(),
but it will be freed in netlink_dump() after it is processed (in no-error
path only though).
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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