[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ADD3982.2040100@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:16:02 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix IP_MULTICAST_IF
Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:41:58 +0200
>>
>>> ipv4/ipv6 setsockopt(IP_MULTICAST_IF) have dubious __dev_get_by_index() calls.
>> Dubious, how so?
>>
>> Yes, I know RTNL/dev_base_lock, but it's not using what it gets
>> back at all.
>>
>> It's testing existence, a boolean, it doesn't dereference the
>> 'dev' it gets back at all.
>>
>> This code is intentional and perfectly fine.
>
> If this was intentional, something changed and made the prereq false.
>
> Final target might be fine, but an element in the chain, before target
> could be deleted while reader scans hash chain.
>
BTW, even an insertion can crash a lockless reader, since reader could see a corrupt
n->next (hlist_add_head() has no barrier between n->next = first and h->first = n;)
static inline void hlist_add_head(struct hlist_node *n, struct hlist_head *h)
{
struct hlist_node *first = h->first;
n->next = first;
if (first)
first->pprev = &n->next;
h->first = n;
n->pprev = &h->first;
}
--
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