netdev - Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:10:27 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but only when tproxy is used, and in some obscure error
> conditions... Probably nobody ever hit them or complained.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. However, it does show how incredibly
fragile that code is.

May I suggest renaming those "clone_sk()" kinds of functions
"clone_sk_lock()" or something? So that you *see* that it's locked as
it is cloned. That might have made the bug not happen in the first
place..

Of course, maybe it's obvious to most net people - just not me looking
at the code - that the new socket ended up being locked at allocation.
But considering the bug happened twice, that "obvious" part is clearly
debatable..

                          Linus
--
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