[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1zladhtoh.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:02:22 -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 Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:27:13AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Summarizing:
>>
>> tun = __tun_get(tfile);
>> if (!tun) { // No tun we are not attached.
>> < -------------------- race opportunity
>> rtnl_lock();
>> tun_set_iff();
>> rtnl_unlock();
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> We don't test if we are attached under the rtnl
>> until we get to tun_attach();
>>
>> So two threads can both do:
>>
>> tun = __tun_get(tfile);
>> if (!tun) {
>> rtnl_lock();
>> tun_set_iff();
>> dev = __dev_get_by_name(net, "not_an_interface_name");
>> if (!dev) {
>> dev = alloc_netdev(....);
>> ...;
>> register_netdev(dev);
>> ...;
>> err = tun_attach(..);
>> }
>>
>>
>> Only one thread is in tun_set_iff() at a time, but the other thread
>> could have attached the file to a device before the one in tun_attach().
>
> Right, I see what you mean. However I don't think this is possible
> because the ioctl runs under the big kernel lock.
Why not? We can sleep on that code path.
Although now that you mention it we should use unlocked_ioctl unless
we actually need the BKL.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists