[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1352240222-363-6-git-send-email-krzysiek@podlesie.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:17:00 +0100
From: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chas Williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/7] pppoatm: take ATM socket lock in pppoatm_send()
The pppoatm_send() does not take any lock that will prevent concurrent
vcc_sendmsg(). This causes two problems:
- there is no locking between checking the send queue size
with atm_may_send() and incrementing sk_wmem_alloc,
and the real queue size can be a little higher than sk_sndbuf
- the vcc->sendmsg() can be called concurrently. I'm not sure
if it's allowed. Some drivers (eni, nicstar, ...) seem
to assume it will never happen.
Now pppoatm_send() takes ATM socket lock, the same that is used
in vcc_sendmsg() and other ATM socket functions. The pppoatm_send()
is called with BH disabled, so bh_lock_sock() is used instead
of lock_sock().
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>
Cc: Chas Williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>
---
net/atm/pppoatm.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/atm/pppoatm.c b/net/atm/pppoatm.c
index b23c672..c4a57bc 100644
--- a/net/atm/pppoatm.c
+++ b/net/atm/pppoatm.c
@@ -272,10 +272,19 @@ static inline int pppoatm_may_send(struct pppoatm_vcc *pvcc, int size)
static int pppoatm_send(struct ppp_channel *chan, struct sk_buff *skb)
{
struct pppoatm_vcc *pvcc = chan_to_pvcc(chan);
+ struct atm_vcc *vcc;
+ int ret;
+
ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc = pvcc->atmvcc;
pr_debug("(skb=0x%p, vcc=0x%p)\n", skb, pvcc->atmvcc);
if (skb->data[0] == '\0' && (pvcc->flags & SC_COMP_PROT))
(void) skb_pull(skb, 1);
+
+ vcc = ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc;
+ bh_lock_sock(sk_atm(vcc));
+ if (sock_owned_by_user(sk_atm(vcc)))
+ goto nospace;
+
switch (pvcc->encaps) { /* LLC encapsulation needed */
case e_llc:
if (skb_headroom(skb) < LLC_LEN) {
@@ -288,8 +297,10 @@ static int pppoatm_send(struct ppp_channel *chan, struct sk_buff *skb)
}
consume_skb(skb);
skb = n;
- if (skb == NULL)
+ if (skb == NULL) {
+ bh_unlock_sock(sk_atm(vcc));
return DROP_PACKET;
+ }
} else if (!pppoatm_may_send(pvcc, skb->truesize))
goto nospace;
memcpy(skb_push(skb, LLC_LEN), pppllc, LLC_LEN);
@@ -299,6 +310,7 @@ static int pppoatm_send(struct ppp_channel *chan, struct sk_buff *skb)
goto nospace;
break;
case e_autodetect:
+ bh_unlock_sock(sk_atm(vcc));
pr_debug("Trying to send without setting encaps!\n");
kfree_skb(skb);
return 1;
@@ -308,9 +320,12 @@ static int pppoatm_send(struct ppp_channel *chan, struct sk_buff *skb)
ATM_SKB(skb)->atm_options = ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->atm_options;
pr_debug("atm_skb(%p)->vcc(%p)->dev(%p)\n",
skb, ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->dev);
- return ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->send(ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, skb)
+ ret = ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->send(ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, skb)
? DROP_PACKET : 1;
+ bh_unlock_sock(sk_atm(vcc));
+ return ret;
nospace:
+ bh_unlock_sock(sk_atm(vcc));
/*
* We don't have space to send this SKB now, but we might have
* already applied SC_COMP_PROT compression, so may need to undo
--
1.8.0.233.g54991f2
--
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