netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] Lost locking in fl6_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47175019.4090004@openvz.org>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:22:49 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Lost locking in fl6_sock_lookup

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400
> 
>> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is
>> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock.
>>
>> Since the socket lock is not taken in the lookup, use
>> the other one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> 
> Applied.
> 
> But I notice that I was wrong in my email, we don't
> hold the socket lock here.
> 
> What prevents an unlink from the socket's list
> and thus a reference count of zero occurring for
> a brief moment?

Oops. You're right here :( I looked at the ip6_fl_lock
and messed it with the ip6_sk_fl_lock.

Should I resend the whole patch, or just make an 
incremental one?

Thanks,
Pavel
-
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