[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAML_gOeqjO--cPu=vt+ed14NqXP1uU41J0RDg5Up7xM79SCWjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:13:07 +0800
From: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@...il.com>
To: Feng Gao <gfree.wind@...il.com>
Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>,
Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next v2 1/2] netfilter: Fix potential null pointer dereference
2016-09-28 11:08 GMT+08:00 Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@...il.com>:
> Hi Feng,
>
> 2016-09-28 9:23 GMT+08:00 Feng Gao <gfree.wind@...il.com>:
>> Hi Aaraon,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org> wrote:
>>> It's possible for nf_hook_entry_head to return NULL if two
>>> nf_unregister_net_hook calls happen simultaneously with a single hook
>>
>> The critical region of nf_unregister_net_hook is protected by &nf_hook_mutex.
>> When it would be called simultaneously?
>
> This is unrelated to race condition.
>
> Suppose that only the last nf_hook_entry exist, and two callers want to do
> un-register work.
>
> The first one will remove it successfully, after the end of the work, the
> second one will enter the critical section, but it will see the NULL pointer.
> Because the last nf_hook_entry was already removed by the first one.
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Feng
>>
>>> entry in the list. This fix ensures that no null pointer dereference
>>> could occur when such a race happens.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
I read the commit log again, I think the description here is a
little confusing indeed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists