[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220816164435.0558ef94@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:44:35 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix suspicious RCU usage in
bpf_sk_reuseport_detach()
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 22:16:46 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> So either __rcu_dereference_sk_user_data_with_flags_check() has to be a macro,
> or we need to go with something like the first version of my patch where I
> don't pass the condition through. Do you have a preference?
I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this
field is.
In fact should we also add && sock_owned_by_user(). Martin, WDYT? Would
that work for reuseport? Jakub S is fixing l2tp to hold the socket lock
while setting this field, yet most places take the callback lock...
One the naming - maybe just drop the _with_flags() ? There's no version
of locked helper which does not take the flags. And not underscores?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists