netdev - Re: A possible bug in reqsk_queue_hash

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: <20100420.142405.228805796.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	raise.sail@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A possible bug in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:06:51 +0200

> I believe its not really necessary, because we are the only possible
> writer at this stage.
> 
> The write_lock() ... write_unlock() is there only to enforce a
> synchronisation with readers.
> 
> All callers of this reqsk_queue_hash_req() must have the socket locked

Right.

In fact there are quite a few snippets around the networking
where we use this trick of only locking around the single
pointer assignment that puts the object into the list.

And they were all written by Alexey Kuznetsov, so they must
be correct :-)
--
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