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

Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:02:02 +0800
From:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A possible bug in reqsk_queue_hash_req()

Eric Dumazet 写道:
> Le mardi 20 avril 2010 à 21:21 +0800, Li Yu a écrit :
> 
>> In my word, write lock also means mutual exclusion among all writers,
>> is it right?
>>
> 
> Yes, generally speaking.
> 
> But not on this use case.
> 
> This is documented in an include file, if you search for syn_wait_lock
> 
>>> All callers of this reqsk_queue_hash_req() must have the socket locked
>> See. If we always assumed the caller should hold the locked socket
>> first, this is not a bug, but I think we'd better add a comment at
>> header file.
> 
> It is documented, as a matter of fact :)
> 
> 

Great, this isn't a bug, you are right here :)

I just found out these comments about syn_wait_lock, it seem that we need to crossed reference documents for kernel API, a newbie like me, may confused at such similar problems.


> 
--
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