| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:32:19 -0700 From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup_ops() under rtnl lock On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote: > > On 03/26/2015 02:55 PM, Cong Wang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Alexander Duyck >> <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I kind of think the patch title is misleading. The code was already >>> under >>> an rtnl_lock, the problem was it was wrapped in the rules_mod_lock and >>> that >> >> >> I don't see callers like ipmr_rules_exit() holds a rtnl lock. > > > It doesn't matter since ipmr is using a different set of fib_rules_ops. So > for example it doesn't appear to implement a delete so all it is doing is > dropping the rules. That is why fib_rules_cleanup_ops needs to stay within > the rules_mod_lock. Why ops->delete() matters here since ops->rules_list is generic? Rules are added to or deleted from ops->rules_list with rtnl lock, so why it is safe to clean up them all without rtnl lock? On the other hand, the name rules_mod_lock already tells it is just a protection for ops (module) register. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists