netdev - Re: [RFC] tcp: race in receive part

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: <20090624163024.GA29337@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:30:24 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
	davem@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: race in receive part

On 06/24, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> +/* The read_lock() on x86 is a full memory barrier. */
> +#define smp_mb__after_read_lock() barrier()

Just curious, why do we need barrier() ?

I must admit, personally I dislike _read_lock part. Because I think we
need a "more generic" smp_mb__{before,after}_lock() or whatever which
work for spin_lock/read_lock/write_lock.

In that case it can have more users. Btw, in fs/select.c too, see
__pollwake().

And surprise,

> --- a/fs/select.c
> +++ b/fs/select.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,10 @@ static void __pollwait(struct file *filp, wait_queue_head_t *wait_address,
>  	init_waitqueue_func_entry(&entry->wait, pollwake);
>  	entry->wait.private = pwq;
>  	add_wait_queue(wait_address, &entry->wait);
> +
> +	/* This memory barrier is paired with the smp_mb__after_read_lock
> +	 * in the sk_has_sleeper. */
> +	smp_mb();

This could be smp_mb__after_lock() too.

Oleg.

--
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