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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:00:40 +0100
From:	Laszlo Attila Toth <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Remove unnecessary locks from rtnetlink

David Miller írta:
> From: Laszlo Attila Toth <>
> Date: Fri,  1 Feb 2008 17:07:33 +0100
>> The do_setlink() function is protected by rtnl, additional locks are unnecessary.
>> and the set_operstate() function is called from protected parts. Locks removed
>> from both functions.
>> The set_operstate() is also called from rtnl_create_link() and from no other places.
>> In rtnl_create_link() none of the changes is protected by set_lock_bh() except
>> inside set_operstate(), different locking scheme is not necessary
>> for the operstate.
>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Attila Toth <>
> The protection using dev_base_lock() is needed.
> When analyzing cases like this you need to also look at other code
> paths outside of rtnetlink that access ->operstate and ->link_mode,
> you obviously didn't do this.
> For example, net/core/net-sysfs.c takes a read lock on dev_base_lock
> in order to fetch a stable copy of both netif_running() and
> dev->operstate at the same time.
> Similar write locking to protect dev->operstate is made by
> net/core/link_watch.c:rfc2863_policy(), for the same reason rtnetlink
> has to make this locking.
> You therefore cannot remove it.

Thanks for your answer, yes, unfortunatelly I checked only inside 

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