netdev - Re: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 28 May 2008 15:06:45 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on ipmr.c locking in 2.6.25

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> 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?
> <snip>
> 
> Since it returns without unlocking in the normal (not error) case, I would
> guess that's how it's supposed to work.  The caller can uses the it->cache
> pointer to work out which lock (if any) it needs to unlock.
> 
> Still, this is an unusual way of doing things, and rates about a 2 on
> Rusty's scale <http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/2008/03/30/> (though
> to be fair this is not critical for static functions).

Ok, I think I see how it works.

Now I wonder:  If a reader read only a small bit of the proc file,
and then just went to sleep w/out closing or reading the rest of
the file, would that effectively DOS a system by pinning the locks?

Thanks,
Ben

> 
> 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