netdev - RE: [PATCH 1/1] driver/net: add missing rtnl lock/unlock for benet

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 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:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:57:41 +0000
From:	Sathya Perla <Sathya.Perla@...lex.Com>
To:	"Li, ZhenHua" <zhen-hual@...com>
CC:	Subramanian Seetharaman <subbu.seetharaman@...lex.com>,
	Ajit Khaparde <Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] driver/net: add missing rtnl lock/unlock for benet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Li, ZhenHua [mailto:zhen-hual@...com]
> 
> Because netif_running() is called in netif_device_detach and
> netif_device_attach. To avoid dev status changed while
> netif_device_detach/attach is not finished, I think a rtnl_lock and
> unlock should be called to avoid this.

Ok. I'd like to then factor the code slightly differently by using
routines like this:

be_close_sync() {
	rtnl_lock();

  	netif_device_detach(netdev);
   	if (netif_running(netdev))
   		be_close(netdev);

	rtnl_unlock();
}

and similarly for be_open_sync()

And, I'd need some time to test these flows too.
Would you be OK with this?

thanks,
-Sathya
--
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