netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sctp: sctp_close: fix release of bindings for deferred call

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <510BD24C.3050507@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:33:48 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sctp: sctp_close: fix release of bindings
 for deferred call_rcu's

On 02/01/2013 03:22 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> +
>> +    if (transport->asoc)
>> +        sctp_association_put(transport->asoc);
>> +
>> +    sctp_packet_free(&transport->packet);
>
> I think it might be better to do sctp_packet_free() before releasing transports ref on the association.  The reason is that if for some reason that ref is the last one, you'd trigger association_destroy()
> call and then come back to try to free the packet.  It just doesn't sound right.  It would be better to free the packet (which should be
> empty at this point anyway), and then drop the ref on the association.

Agreed, that's more sound.
--
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