netdev - Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: don't poll dead peers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:33:59 +0100
From:	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Olivier Mauras <olivier@...ras.ch>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: don't poll dead peers

On 4 March 2015 at 22:26, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com> wrote:
> [ Removed Rainer from the Cc list, his address is bouncing. ]
>
> On 4 March 2015 at 22:02, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 21:39 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
>>> On 4 March 2015 at 21:21, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Using locks in _poll() is going to be tremendously expensive for some
>>> > applications still using poll() or select() ?
>>>
>>> I've no idea but we're already taking this very lock in the
>>> unix_peer_get() call a few lines above.
>>
>> This is not the same lock.
>>
>> other != sk
>
> True. So, do you propose to not take the lock at all?

Ping.

Eric, do you think it's safe to not take the lock prior testing the flag?

Mathias
--
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