netdev - Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: take receive queue lock while appending new skb

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]

Message-ID: <1447777782.22599.121.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:29:42 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] af_unix: take receive queue lock while appending
 new skb

On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 15:55 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> I want to move to unix_state_lock and completely drop sk_buff_head.lock
> in af_unix, as such I would prefer to keep it this way as in some other
> places in af_unix.c (e.g. unix_stream_connect).
> 
> Or do you have a strong opinion on that?


I am saying we use 2 times skb_queue_tail(), one time skb_unlink(),
and 2 times skb_queue_purge(), all using spin_lock_irqsave()

But you took the single __skb_queue_tail() that was present in this
file ;)

No strong opinion, just a matter of simplicity and code size.

Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.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