[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3974013.1660769749@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 21:55:49 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, 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()
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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...
So how do you want to proceed? My first version of the patch with
sock_owned_by_user()?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists