netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] vxlan: distribute vxlan tunneled traffic across multiple TXQs

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: <20131231.135636.1587787263812667419.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:56:36 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	stephen@...workplumber.org, sathya.perla@...lex.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] vxlan: distribute vxlan tunneled traffic
 across multiple TXQs

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:39:06 -0800

> On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:28 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
>> The idea is good, but without the destructor there is nothing to keep
>> the UDP socket from being destroyed while packet is being sent on another
>> CPU.
> 
> I see no requirement of holding a reference on the vxlan UDP socket in
> transmit path.

I'm trying to figure out how leaving a dangling socket attached to
skb->sk, as in this original patch, can be OK.

If skb->sk is there, anyone can reference it, and meanwhile anyone can
destroy and free it.

That's Stephens' objection.

Are you saying that we have something that allows this to be valid?
--
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