netdev - Question on ipmr.c locking in 2.6.25

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

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

Date:	Wed, 28 May 2008 14:38:54 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Question on ipmr.c locking in 2.6.25

It looks like this method can return without unlocking the
mrt_lock or mfc_unres_lock.  Is this a bug, or am I just
confused about how it is supposed to work?

I haven't reproduced any problem..just staring at the code
while trying to add support for multiple routing tables...

static struct mfc_cache *ipmr_mfc_seq_idx(struct ipmr_mfc_iter *it, loff_t pos)
{
	struct mfc_cache *mfc;

	it->cache = mfc_cache_array;
	read_lock(&mrt_lock);
	for (it->ct = 0; it->ct < MFC_LINES; it->ct++)
		for (mfc = mfc_cache_array[it->ct]; mfc; mfc = mfc->next)
			if (pos-- == 0)
				return mfc;
	read_unlock(&mrt_lock);

	it->cache = &mfc_unres_queue;
	spin_lock_bh(&mfc_unres_lock);
	for (mfc = mfc_unres_queue; mfc; mfc = mfc->next)
		if (pos-- == 0)
			return mfc;
	spin_unlock_bh(&mfc_unres_lock);

	it->cache = NULL;
	return NULL;
}

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
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