[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <565DAD8D.9020800@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:24:13 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: memory leak in do_ipv6_setsockopt
On 12/01/2015 03:16 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 15:07 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we miss inet6_destroy_sock() in SCTP. :-(
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>
> OK, I will send a formal (and tested ;) ) patch.
I was shortly wondering whether there could be a use-after-free by
doing this after sctp_destroy_sock() due to the sctp_endpoint_destroy()
that would eventually drop a ref on the socket, but the endpoint holds
a separate ref, so we should be good.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
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