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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:23:57 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...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 Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> 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().
Okay, thanks Cong.

Reviewed-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>