[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E490CD805F7529488761C40FD9D26EF1299D0D11@DGGEMA505-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:50:55 +0000
From: Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] net/packet: fix race condition between fanout_add
and __unregister_prot_hook
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> In case of failure we also need to unlink and free match. I
> sent the following:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/813945/
+ spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
+ if (po->running &&
+ match->type == type &&
match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type &&
match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) {
err = -ENOSPC;
@@ -1761,6 +1760,13 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, u16 id, u16 type_flags)
err = 0;
}
}
+ spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock);
+
+ if (err && !refcount_read(&match->sk_ref)) {
+ list_del(&match->list);
+ kfree(match);
+ }
In the function fanout_add add spin_lock to protect po-> running and po-> fanout,
then whether it should be in the function fanout_release also add spin_lock protection ?
static struct packet_fanout *fanout_release(struct sock *sk)
....
mutex_lock(&fanout_mutex);
f = po->fanout;
if (f) {
po->fanout = NULL;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists