linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO #5 18/18] LSM expansion for TOMOYO Linux.

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200711200004.lAK044jG080743@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:04:04 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #5 18/18] LSM expansion for TOMOYO Linux.

Hello.

Paul Moore wrote:
> My apologies, I mistakenly read the following if statement in your patch:
> 
>  +       if (skb == skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
>  +               __skb_unlink(skb, &sk->sk_receive_queue);
>  +               atomic_dec(&skb->users);
>  +       }
> 
> I read the conditional as the following:
> 
>  +       if (skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue)) {
> 
> ... which would have caused the problems I was describing.  I'm sorry for all 
> of the confusion/frustration, you patient explanations are correct; I was 
> wrong in this particular case.
No problem.

To everyone:

  Are there any remaining worries with skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept()?

  If nobody has objection, I'd like to cut these skb_recv_datagram()/socket_post_accept() changes
  and submit to -mm tree.

Regards.
-
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/