[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9f8cc561-e1e6-c2f6-2bcc-3fe0282ca05c@hartkopp.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:28:57 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] can: Fix kernel panic at security_sock_rcv_skb
Hello Dave, Greg,
On 01/30/2017 12:34 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:11:44 -0800
>
>> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>
>> Zhang Yanmin reported crashes [1] and provided a patch adding a
>> synchronize_rcu() call in can_rx_unregister()
>>
>> The main problem seems that the sockets themselves are not RCU
>> protected.
>>
>> If CAN uses RCU for delivery, then sockets should be freed only after
>> one RCU grace period.
>>
>> Recent kernels could use sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_RCU_FREE), but let's
>> ease stable backports with the following fix instead.
> ...
>> Reported-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Eric.
>
can you please check whether this upstream commit
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f1712c73714088a7252d276a57126d56c7d37e64
really was queued up for -stable?
This commit
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a06393ed03167771246c4c43192d9c264bc48412
was posted later and already got into the 4.4 and 4.9 stable trees.
Best regards,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists