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  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]
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:38:20 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <>
Cc:	Zach Brown <>,,
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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists