netdev - Re: [PATCH] igmp: fix ip_mc_sf

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: <20100106185011.GD6824@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:50:11 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Flavio Leitner <fleitner@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] igmp: fix ip_mc_sf_allow race [v3]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 09:10:07AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:40:27 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > -	if (inet->mc_list == NULL)
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +	if (rcu_dereference(inet->mc_list) == NULL) {
> > > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> > >  		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +	rcu_read_unlock();  
> > 
> > I don't understand what rcu_read_lock() is protecting here.  The
> > test is still unstable -- just after finding inet->mc_list non-NULL,
> > ip_mc_leave_group() might cause it to become NULL.
> > 
> > Is there a need to protect sock_net(sk)?  (I don't believe so, but then
> > again, I don't claim to understand locking in Linux networking.)
> > If there is no need, it should be possible to drop the rcu_read_lock(),
> > rcu_read_unlock(), and rcu_dereference() above.  (You might want them
> > for documentation purposes, as they aren't hurting anything, just
> > wondering what the intent is.)
> 
> I think code is trying to avoid looking at mc_list if no multicast
> addresses. But it is an unsafe check.

Fair enough!  Might be worth a comment saying that the rcu_read_lock(),
rcu_read_unlock()s, and rcu_dereference() are just for show.

> If mc_list was just converted to list_head this would all be clearer

Agreed!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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