netdev - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't destroy TCP sockets twice

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: <20100810103206.GC6801@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:32:06 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't destroy TCP sockets twice

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:24:21AM -0400, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:30:40AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> . 
> > This simple patch demonstrates double destroy. I have patches for showing
> > the more complicated case too, but they're much more ugly.
> 
> Andi, I know you're seeing the problem, but I need to udnerstand
> why, and this patch doesn't really answer the why part :)
> 
> So did you figure out why was calling it first (I presume you
> know who called it the second time since you've got the back
> trace)?

Yes I stored the backtrace of the first caller in the ugly debug
patches and dumped that on the second destroy. It was tcp_done the 
first time.

Also did the same for tcp_sk() and there it was the fin sending.

I agree that tcp_close() should skip it in theory but I saw
it anyways :/

-Andi
--
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