netdev - Re: What is lock_sock() before skb_free

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

Message-Id: <20090419.004424.141669610.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is lock_sock() before skb_free_datagram() for?

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:12:15 +0900

> David Miller wrote:
>> We worked so hard to split out this common code, it is simply
>> a non-starter for anyone to start putting protocol specific test
>> into here, or even worse to move this code back to being locally
>> copied into every protocol implementation.
> You don't want LSM modules to perform protocol specific test inside
> __skb_recv_datagram(). I see.
> 
>> You may want to think about how you can achieve your goals by putting
>> these unpleasant hooks into some other location.
> May I insert security_socket_post_recv_datagram() into the caller of
> skb_recv_datagram() (as shown below)?

This definitely looks better, yes.
--
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