linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UML - Correctly handle skb allocation failures

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070928012132.GA10302@c2.user-mode-linux.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:21:32 -0400
From:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UML - Correctly handle skb allocation failures

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:53:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Still wanna know why it is safe for uml_net_rx to be playing with
> drop_skb when update_drop_skb() could be concurrently reallocating
> and freeing it.

Ah, yes, I missed that point in the horror of my botch last night.

I'll add irqsave/irqrestore to the locking - keep this patch, and I'll
send in a fix.

				Jeff

-- 
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
-
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/