netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: kill sk_dst

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]

Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:13:08 +0100
From:	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: kill sk_dst_lock

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 08:35 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> ip6_sk_dst_lookup_flow() uses sk_dst_check() anyway, so the simplest
> way to fix the mess is to remove sk_dst_lock completely, as we did for
> IPv4.

Probably I'm missing something here, but why we don't need to sync the
update of sk_dst_cache and of dst_cookie (i.e. put them under the same
lock)?

Can't we end up with inconsistent values after concurrent udp
sendmsg() ? 

Cheers,

Paolo

--
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