[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1448490732.1842763.450231537.5358AF37@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:32:12 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: use-after-free in sock_wake_async
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 23:09, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 20:57 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> > I do agree that keeping the ->sk_data_ready outside of the lock will
> > very likely have performance advantages. That's just something I
> > wouldn't have undertaken because I'd be reluctant to make a fairly
> > complicated change to a lot of code.
>
> All I am saying is that we can keep current performance.
>
> We already have the core infrastructure, we only need to properly use
> it.
>
> I will split my changes in two parts.
>
> One part doing a very boring change of
>
> rename SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE and SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA
> for X in SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA
>
> set_bit(X, &sk->sk_socket->flags) -> sk_set_bit(X, sk)
> clear_bit(X, &sk->sk_socket->flags) -> sk_clear_bit(X, sk)
sk_set_bit and sk_clear_bit will forward the set_bit and clear_bit into
the socket_wq like you explained above?
> The rename will help backports to catch code that might have been
> removed in recent kernels.
>
> Then the second patch will do the actual changes, and they will look
> very sensible for people wanting to review them, and or familiar with
> the stack, do not worry ;)
Do you see a chance to inline socket_wq into struct socket and discard
struct socket_alloc in one go by rcu in socket_destroy_inode?
Thanks,
Hannes
--
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