netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1] tun: Cleanup error handling in tun_set

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: <m1hbwlkzt6.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:21:41 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] tun: Cleanup error handling in tun_set_iff()

Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 05:38:42PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> My concern is that I believe that if the kernel fails at an operation it 
>> should do all it can to unwind any actions it took in the course of attempting 
>> to perform the requested operation.  Leaving a TUN device around in the case 
>> of a tun_attach() failure seems like the kernel is being lazy, sure a user can 
>> cleanup the device but why should they have to?
>
> That particular tun_attach should never fail.  Perhaps you can
> just add a WARN_ON.

Two threads one file descriptor.  Both simultaneously attempt to 
attach to a tun device.  One will fail, the other succeed.

At least that is how I read the locking.

Eric
--
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