netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] net/socket: use per af lockdep classes for sk queues

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: <1487958643.9415.112.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:43 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] net/socket: use per af lockdep classes for sk queues

On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 14:29 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Currently the sock queue's spin locks get their lockdep
> classes by the default init_spin_lock() initializer:
> all socket families get - usually, see below - a single
> class for rx, another specific class for tx, etc.
> This can lead to false positive lockdep splat, as
> reported by Andrey.
> Moreover there are two separate initialization points
> for the sock queues, one in sk_clone_lock() and one
> in sock_init_data(), so that e.g. the rx queue lock
> can get one of two possible, different classes, depending
> on the socket being cloned or not.
> This change tries to address the above, setting explicitly
> a per address family lockdep class for each queue's
> spinlock. Also, move the duplicated initialization code to a
> single location.
> 
> Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> ---

I have not tested the patch, but it looks pretty reasonable to me,
thanks !