netdev - Re: What protects rcu_dereference() in __sk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B517F06.5000008@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:55:34 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	dim@...nvz.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What protects rcu_dereference() in __sk_free()?

Le 15/01/2010 20:51, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> 
> Thank you for the info, Eric!
> 
> One option would be to remove the rcu_dereference() from __sk_free().
> Given that it was there, my thought would be to make it read as follows:
> 
> 	filter = rcu_dereference_check(sk->sk_filter,
> 				       atomic_read(&sk->sk_wmem_alloc) == 0);
> 
> This approach would have the benefit of potentially catching some race
> conditions if built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.  Does this seem reasonable to
> you?

Thats a good suggestion, this documents the thing with no runtime cost.

Thanks
--
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