netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: time stamping fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:57:18 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: time stamping fixes

On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 15:44 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 octobre 2011 à 15:35 +0200, Johannes Berg a écrit :
> 
> > Even with that fixed I'm not really convinced of it all -- need to
> > really really really make sure that no skb->sk that was owned by a TX
> > skb is ever passed to sock_hold(). Can we really guarantee that?
> 
> Either we can guarantee that, or kernel is a piece of crap, all bets are
> off.

Fair enough :-)

> Yes, we need to make an audit, since we assumed sock_hold() was the
> right thing to do in all contexts.

Ok.

Anyway, I guess you agree that the patches as-is aren't actually the
right solution since we can't sock_hold() a TX skb socket reference?

johannes

--
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