netdev - Re: [patch net-next 3/6] net_sched: cls_bpf: remove faulty use of list_for_each_entry

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]

Date:	Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:15:13 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 3/6] net_sched: cls_bpf: remove faulty use of
 list_for_each_entry_rcu

On 12/03/2014 10:15 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
...
> I am not an rcu officionado. So if the control path is doing a non-rcu
> get + rcu-del/change (update) then as long as the fastpath is (read)
> rcu locking we are fine  and nothing will actually happen until the
> fastpath releases and rcu grace period ends, correct?

So if the control path does a list_del_rcu() and call_rcu() under
lock and iterates over list_for_each_entry{,safe}() [which we do
in cls_bpf_delete()], while the fast path [cls_bpf_classify()] uses
a rcu_read_{un,}lock() with *_rcu list iterator, that's fine then,
as it's still guaranteed to be deleted after the grace period. So
Jiri's change looks good to me.

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
--
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