netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net, sched: fix soft lockup in tc

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: <20161222.115326.376675148706578174.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:53:26 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, shahark@...lanox.com,
        gerlitz.or@...il.com, roid@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net, sched: fix soft lockup in tc_classify

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:07:48 +0100

> Ok, you mean for net. In that case I prefer the smaller sized fix to
> be honest. It also covers everything from the point where we fetch
> the chain via cops->tcf_chain() to the end of the function, which is
> where most of the complexity resides, and only the two mentioned
> commits do the relock, so as a fix I think it's fine as-is. As
> mentioned, if there's need to refactor tc_ctl_tfilter() net-next
> would be better, imho.

Please, can you two work towards an agreement as to what fix should
go in at this time?

Thanks.