netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:07:05 -0500
From:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, olel@....pl,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:46:55AM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> 
> >> diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >> +++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >> @@ -1111,8 +1111,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(str
> >> out:
> >>        write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock);
> >> 
> >> -       rtnl_unlock();
> >> -
> >
> >Looking at the changeset that added this perhaps the intention
> >is to hold the lock? If so we should add an rtnl_lock to the start
> >of the function.
> 
> 	Yes, this function needs to hold locks, and more than just
> what's there now.  I believe the following should be correct; I haven't
> tested it, though (I'm supposedly on vacation right now).
> 
> 	The following change should be correct for the
> bonding_store_primary case discussed in this thread, and also corrects
> the bonding_store_active case which performs similar functions.
> 
> 	The bond_change_active_slave and bond_select_active_slave
> functions both require rtnl, bond->lock for read and curr_slave_lock for
> write_bh, and no other locks.  This is so that the lower level
> mode-specific functions can release locks down to just rtnl in order to
> call, e.g., dev_set_mac_address with the locks it expects (rtnl only).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>

This looks good to me as well....

Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>

--
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