[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:34:33 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: kaber@...sh.net
Cc: joe@...ches.com, mcgrof@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix infinite loop on dev_mc_unsync()
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:13:42 +0100
> Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:12 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> >> This may cause a use-after-free since __dev_addr_delete frees the address
> >> when all references are gone.
> >>
> >
> > How about a comment then? Perhaps:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev_mcast.c b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
> > index ae35405..63576aa 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev_mcast.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
> > @@ -165,16 +165,23 @@ void dev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device *from)
> > netif_tx_lock_bh(from);
> > netif_tx_lock_bh(to);
> >
> > + /*
> > + This while loop can't be written as
> > + for (da = from->mc_list; da; da = da->next)
> > + da = from->mc_list and __dev_addr_delete can kfree(from->mc_list)
> > + which could cause a use-after-free of da->next
> > + */
> >
>
> Seems unnecessary to me, we also don't comment each list_for_each_entry_safe
> iteration. I consider the use of a seperate next variable self-explanatory.
Agreed, this comment is pointless.
I'll apply Joe's patch without the comment.
-
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