[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1489505658.2413.12.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:34:18 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: net: deadlock between ip_expire/sch_direct_xmit
On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 08:09 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if we really need to keep the fragment queue lock held
> > while sending the icmp packet ? we hold a reference to the struct, so
> > it can't be deleted, and AFAICS after ipq_kill() nobody else could
> > access/modify that queue.
> >
> > That lock is there pretty much forever, but perhaps is only a leftover
> > and we can release it just after ipq_kill() ?
>
> Maybe, but for peace of mind I would make sure this code path owns the
> skb (head) before releasing the lock.
>
> Seems something to try for net-next ?
Agreed.
I asked because I was in doubt I missed something obvious.
Thank you,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists