netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

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: <4AC9A42F.7010302@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:45:51 -0400
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

As I'm new to Linux kernel development, this was based entirely on code
previously reviewed (by Miller), as that seemed a good path for me to learn
proper coding and style.

Now that I'm trying to grok Linux locking functions for the next patch, I've
noticed that setsockopt code uses lock_sock(), but getsockopt doesn't.  In a
preemptive kernel, or with SMP, isn't there a possibility that these socket
values could be modified or destroyed at the same time?

I'm especially concerned here, as there are kref blocks, and they could be
left pointing into the weeds?
--
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