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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:52:06 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: "avagin@...il.com" <avagin@...il.com> Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] uevent: send events in correct order according to seqnum On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:14:04AM +0400, avagin@...il.com wrote: > On 03/07/2012 01:03 AM, Kay Sievers wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 21:06, Andrew Vagin<avagin@...nvz.org> wrote: > >> > >>The queue handling in the udev daemon assumes that the events are > >>ordered. > >> > >>Before this patch uevent_seqnum is incremented under sequence_lock, > >>than an event is send uner uevent_sock_mutex. I want to say that code > >>contained a window between incrementing seqnum and sending an event. > >> > >>This patch locks uevent_sock_mutex before incrementing uevent_seqnum. > > > >I think we can remove the spin_lock(&sequence_lock); entirely now, right? > > I thought about that too. sequence_lock is used when CONFIG_NET > isn't defined. I've looked on this code one more time and we may > leave only uevent_sock_mutex and use it even when CONFIG_NET isn't > defined. > Thanks for the comment. > > Greg, do you have other objections about this patch? Let's see the one based on Kay's comments first please. thanks, greg k-h -- 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