netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on recv() with MSG

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

Message-ID: <1442776905.29850.37.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:21:45 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on
 recv() with MSG_PEEK flag

On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 15:07 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 05:18 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> >> From: Aaron Conole <aaron@...heb.org>
> >> 
> >
> > I am wondering what this is expected to do, and how this code would
> > possibly not trigger a crash.
> Are you suspecting it should crash from a possible double-lock case?
> On line 2125, there is an unconditional unlock, which should be 
> guaranteeing that there is no longer a condition to 'double lock' the
> socket.

Not at all.

I am suggesting there is a big difference between

unix_state_lock(&sk);

and

unix_state_lock(sk);

Can you see it ?



--
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