linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: don't abuse next

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:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 22:13:52 -0500
From:   Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: don't abuse
 next_thread()

On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Compile tested.
>
> Every lockless usage of next_thread() was wrong, bpf/task_iter.c is
> the last user and is no exception.

It would be great if you can give more information in the commit message
about why the usage of next_thread() is wrong in bpf/task_iter.c.
IIUC, some information is presented in :
   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143112.GA31208@redhat.com/

Also, please add 'bpf' in the subject tag ([PATCH bpf 0/3]) to
make it clear the patch should be applied to bpf tree.

>
> Oleg.
> ---
>
>   kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 29 +++++++++++------------------
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>