netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly increment bsockets and num

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: <20101128230041.GA16269@ioremap.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:00:41 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@...oo.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly
 increment bsockets and num_owners

Hi.

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Nagendra Tomar (tomer_iisc@...oo.com) wrote:
> inet sockets corresponding to passive connections are added to the bind hash
> using ___inet_inherit_port(). These sockets are later removed from the bind 
> hash using __inet_put_port(). These two functions are not exactly symmetrical. 
> __inet_put_port() decrements hashinfo->bsockets and tb->num_owners, whereas 
> ___inet_inherit_port() does not increment them. This results in both of these 
> going to -ve values.
> 
> This patch fixes this by calling inet_bind_hash() from ___inet_inherit_port(),
> which does the right thing.
> 
> 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' were introduced by commit a9d8f9110d7e953c 
> (inet: Allowing more than 64k connections and heavily optimize bind(0))

Yup, things changed from that simple patch a lot.
Thanks for fixing it up.
Ack.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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