netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] usbnet: Avoid potential races in usbnet_deferred

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: <CABXOdTdnaf5REYjgtR6+hoRhiB2c=xb+1CxMmv7XsukYDFDitA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:51:58 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] usbnet: Avoid potential races in usbnet_deferred_kevent()

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.09.2017, 09:15 -0700 schrieb Douglas Anderson:
>> In general when you've got a flag communicating that "something needs
>> to be done" you want to clear that flag _before_ doing the task.  If
>> you clear the flag _after_ doing the task you end up with the risk
>> that this will happen:
>>
>> 1. Requester sets flag saying task A needs to be done.
>> 2. Worker comes and stars doing task A.
>> 3. Worker finishes task A but hasn't yet cleared the flag.
>> 4. Requester wants to set flag saying task A needs to be done again.
>> 5. Worker clears the flag without doing anything.
>>
>> Let's make the usbnet codebase consistently clear the flag _before_ it
>> does the requested work.  That way if there's another request to do
>> the work while the work is already in progress it won't be lost.
>>
>> NOTES:
>> - No known bugs are fixed by this; it's just found by code inspection.
>
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately the patch is wrong. The flags must be cleared only
> in case the handler is successful. That is not guaranteed.
>

Just out of curiosity, what is the retry mechanism ? Whenever a new,
possibly unrelated, event is scheduled ?

Thanks,
Guenter