| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:46:36 -0400 From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: lksctp-developers@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/2] Add RCU locking to SCTP address management Ok, this is version 2 of the patch that incorporates comments from Sridhar Samudrala and Paul McKenney. The changes icorporated are: 1. Add locking around the modification of the global sctp_local_addr_list when processing the notifiers. After looking around, it is possible for the IPv4 and IPv6 notifiers to be called at the same time, which means that we need a spin lock. 2. After the Paul's explanation of why writers would would to call rcu_read_lock, it's apparent that we really don't need that in our usage. I've removed all that I could find and conser safe. 3. I took Paul's suggestiong of passing an explicit rcu callback when removing entries from the list since these can be done it different contexts. This made the removal code rather simple. Things I've left behind: 1. The valid flag remains. After discussing the virtues with Paul Moore (who used the same functionality in Netlabel code), I think that the valid flag slightly reduces the possibility that the reader will use an entry that's about to be removed. It's a good thing in our case. It doesn't really harm anything if a reader used a !valid entry, but I'd like to reduce that chance. I would appreciate any further comments Thanks -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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists