netdev - Re: [Patch net] igmp: acquire pmc lock for ip_mc_clear

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: <CAM_iQpV7GmFfM2zo0ADxHm7fF4EErY5h3jLLKvNhfN+N-tYStQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:35:45 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] igmp: acquire pmc lock for ip_mc_clear_src()

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi, Cong.
>
> how about in ip_check_mc_rcu():
>         for (psf = im->sources; psf; psf = psf->sf_next) {
>                if (psf->sf_inaddr == src_addr)
>                            break;
>          }
>
> I didn't see spinlock for it, is it safe to access them in parallel ?
> or these two places would never be in parallel ?

That is a different bug which needs more work, therefore
I defer it to net-next. And I already explained to you why
it needs more work than just a call_rcu().