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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20140305.211530.2206817902037251680.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:15:30 -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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:06:41 -0800

> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 20:59 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> We can do that, but would it be a stable candidate ?
> 
> What about I send a followup for net-next ?

Targetting net-next for the assertion is fine.

Did you get test results back yet?

--
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