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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:02:42 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, shuah@...nel.org, valentina.manea.m@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] usbip: fix stub_dev usbip_sockfd_store() races leading to gpf On 2021/03/10 9:29, Shuah Khan wrote: >> It is not a large grain lock. Since event_handler() is exclusively executed, this lock >> does _NOT_ block event_handler() unless attach/detach operations run concurrently. >> >>> > > event handler queues the events. It shouldn't be blocked by attach > and detach. The events could originate for various reasons during > the host and vhci operations. I don't like using this lock for > attach and detach. How can attach/detach deadlock event_handler()? event_handler() calls e.g. vhci_shutdown_connection() via ud->eh_ops.shutdown(ud). vhci_shutdown_connection() e.g. waits for termination of tx/rx threads via kthread_stop_put(). event_handler() is already blocked by detach operation. How it can make situation worse to wait for creation of tx/rx threads in attach operation?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists