netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ppp: ensure file->private

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: <20160314.145759.727527672385295428.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	g.nault@...halink.fr
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ppp: ensure file->private_data can't be overridden

From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:59:40 +0100

> Testing ->private_data without lock in ppp_ioctl() before calling
> ppp_unattached_ioctl() is fine, because either ->private_data is
> not NULL and thus is stable, or it is and ppp_unattached_ioctl()
> takes care of not overriding ->private_data, should its value get
> modified before taking the mutex.

This is exactly the ambiguous behavior I want you to avoid.

The decision should be atomic from ppp_ioctl()'s test all the way
until ppp_unattached_ioctl() does it's work.