[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVuzYRAb4qFj1kPduxCUsAjkyik=qXriQcP6g7gPgyXRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:36:37 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] audit: use proper refcount locking on audit_sock
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2016-12-13 16:19, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -1283,8 +1299,10 @@ static void __net_exit audit_net_exit(struct net *net)
>> > {
>> > struct audit_net *aunet = net_generic(net, audit_net_id);
>> > struct sock *sock = aunet->nlsk;
>> > + mutex_lock(&audit_cmd_mutex);
>> > if (sock == audit_sock)
>> > auditd_reset();
>> > + mutex_unlock(&audit_cmd_mutex);
>>
>> This still doesn't look correct to me, b/c here we release the audit_sock
>> refcnt twice:
>>
>> 1) inside audit_reset()
>
> The audit_reset() refcount decrement corresponds to a setting of
> audit_sock only if audit_sock is still non-NULL.
>
Hmm, thinking about it again, looks like the sock == audit_sock
and audit_sock != NULL checks can guarantee we are safe. So,
Reviewed-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists