netdev - Re: [patch net v2 1/4] net/sched: Change tc_action refcnt and bindcnt to atomic

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:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:21:18 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch net v2 1/4] net/sched: Change tc_action refcnt and bindcnt
 to atomic

On 17-10-18 12:43 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----

> 
> You listed 3 problems, and you think they are 3 different ones, here
> I argue problem 3 (using RCU callbacks) is the cause of problem 1
> (refcnt not atomic). This is why I mentioned I have been thinking about
> removing RCU callbacks, because it probably could fix all of them.
> 

Cong,
Given this is a known bug (the test case Chris presented crashes the
kernel) - would it make sense to have a patch that goes to -net
to fix this while your approach and discussion outcome goes into
net-next?

cheers,
jamal