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]
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:54:38 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfrm: Fix refcount imbalance in xfrm_lookup

On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 15:09 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <>

> > Hmm... are you sure ?
> > 
> > Before 1a1ccc96abb we did a dst_hold() because we kept the dst in
> > xfrm_policy_sk_bundles. So keeping a reference count was mandatory.
> > 
> > But after, I don't understand why it is needed at all.
> It should be needed.
> We create a new bundle here, from scratch, based upon the socket
> policy.
> Such new bundles make routes with dst refcount == 0.
> All callers expect that the route given back to them is either
> the original 'dst' passed into xfrm_lookup() unmolested, or a
> new 'dst' having a refcount taken for this caller.
> That's why all call sites expect that they can just go
> "dst_release(dst)" and these objects it works.
> So, if we returned 'dst' with refcount == 0 it would not work.

OK, I understood, thanks !

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists