[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090415134610.GA11683@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:46:10 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Matias Zabaljauregui <zabaljauregui@...il.com>, odie@...aau.dk,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, lguest@...abs.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Lguest] [PATCH 4/5] lguest: use KVM hypercalls
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:35:58AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Because as far as I can tell we would just leak that refcount.
>
> The poll code does not appear to call back into any of the file
> methods when it frees itself from the wait queue.
OK my suggestion was stupid.
But I still don't see how this race is possible at all.
So process A has a tun fd open and is spinning in poll(2). Now
process B comes along and deletes that tun device. Process A's
fd should have a netdev reference that keeps the device and
associated structures alive.
Oh I see what's going on. We're automatically detaching the
device in uninit. This is just wrong. Just because process B
deleted the netdev, process A should not be involutarily detached.
Does anything actually rely on this behaviour?
If not we should just change it to not do that.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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