netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: tcp_release_cb() should release socket ownership

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, 05 Mar 2014 20:59:38 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	lars.persson@...s.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: tcp_release_cb() should release socket ownership

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:39:12 -0800

> @@ -767,6 +767,17 @@ void tcp_release_cb(struct sock *sk)
>  	if (flags & (1UL << TCP_TSQ_DEFERRED))
>  		tcp_tsq_handler(sk);
>  
> +	/* Here begins the tricky part :
> +	 * We are called from release_sock() with :
> +	 * 1) BH disabled
> +	 * 2) sk_lock.slock spinlock held
> +	 * 3) socket owned by us (sk->sk_lock.owned == 1)
> +	 *
> +	 * But following code is meant to be called from BH handlers,
> +	 * so we should keep BH disabled, but early release socket ownership
> +	 */
> +	sock_release_ownership(sk);
> +

It really means that sk_lock.owned cannot ever be accessed without the
sk_lock spinlock held.

Most of this is easy to hand audit, except sock_owned_by_user() which
has call sites everywhere.

Consider adding a locking assertion to it.
--
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