linux-kernel - Re: netlink: Add barrier to netlink

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]

Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:01:13 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, cwang@...pensource.com,
	tom@...bertland.com, kafai@...com, kernel-team@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, tgraf@...g.ch, sfeldma@...il.com
Subject: Re: netlink: Add barrier to netlink_connect for theoretical case

Hello, Herbert.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:43:27AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Well had you said this in the first place I would've fixed it a
> long time ago.  There aren't any in-kernel users right now and
> even if there were they'd have to do a connect/bind/sendmsg on
> the same socket in two threads at the same time.  But let's close
> this theoretical hole:

I'm not even sure we guarantee memory barrier on kernel/user
crossings.  In practice, we probably have enough barriers (e.g. some
syscall traps imply barrier) but I can't think of a reason why we'd
guarantee the existence of barrier there.  As an extreme example,
imagine UML on an architecture with relaxed memory model.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/