netdev - Re: [PATCH] sctp: lock_sock_nested in sctp_sock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <468027BC.1070706@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:38:20 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	lksctp-developers@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: lock_sock_nested in sctp_sock_migrate

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Hm... This is another case of of two different sockets taking the same
>> lock...
>>
>> Arjan,  did this every get fixed, or is the nested locking the right
>> solution
>> to this?
>>
> 
> for this specific case it's ok and the nested solution is right.
> In the general case it's obviously not safe to take the locks of two
> sockets in "unspecified" order....
> 

Well, in this case the order is very carefully specified, but I was more
interested in what the right solution is.

The newsk, from the patch, has just been created, but needs to be locked
to prevent soft_irq from queuing packets to it while we are mucking around.
This is the same case as the accept case that had issues some time ago.

-vlad
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html