netdev - Re: Fwd: usbnet: Recursive Locking bug ?

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1012071141520.1802-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:46:32 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Neil Jones <neiljay@...il.com>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: usbnet: Recursive Locking bug ?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Neil Jones wrote:

> > But what makes sure that the URB unlinked in unlink_urbs() stays a valid pointer?
> > The bottom half may run and free the URB.
> 
> I think it may be safe to remove the lock as we are walking a list of
> SKBs not URBs,
> the BH can remove SKB's from the list but we are doing a safe list walk.
> + the BH takse the list lock when it does the remove.
> 
> I could be wrong though?

A simple answer to Oliver's question is to take a reference to the 
URB while still holding the lock, then release the lock before calling 
usb_unlink_urb(), then drop the reference to the URB.

Of course, this also requires you to restart the loop from the
beginning after each unlink, and it means you need to have a way to
recognize when an URB has already been unlinked.

Alan Stern

--
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