| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4BC32F7A.4040809@ruggedcom.com> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:34:34 -0400 From: Michael Barkowski <michaelbarkowski@...gedcom.com> To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: hdlc_ppp: why no detach()? Michael Barkowski wrote: > Hello Krzyztof, > > I am looking at your hdlc_ppp code and I don't understand: why is there > not the equivalent of fr_detach() in there? > > pc8300_drv:cpc_remove_one() frees netdevs quite confidently but I wonder > how it can be so sure that there are not skbs in hdlc_ppp's tx_queue > associated with those devices before freeing them.... > the above is the real danger I see - free the netdev, then ppp's timer comes along and dequeues from tx_queue an skb with invalid device. > Even if you wanted to switch a device from PPP to Frame Relay, I don't > see the method right now. If I may ask, please, what am I missing? > Ok - this part was a momentary lapse on my part - please strike from the record :) > If you agree there is a need for detach(), I would be happy to work on > it and make a submission. > > thanks for your time, > -- Michael Barkowski 905-482-4577 -- 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