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, 14 May 2019 16:33:31 +0000
From:   Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "sashal@...nel.org" <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] hv_sock: Fix data loss upon socket close



> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-hyperv-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-hyperv-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of David Miller
> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 1:58 PM
> To: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>; sashal@...nel.org; Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>; Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv_sock: Fix data loss upon socket close
> 
> From: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 23:10:35 +0000
> 
> > +static inline void hvs_shutdown_lock_held(struct hvsock *hvs, int mode)
> 
> Please do not use the inline keyword in foo.c files, let the compiler decide.
> 
Thanks, will fix in the next version.
> Also, longer term thing, I notice that vsock_remove_socket() is very
> inefficient locking-wise.  It takes the table lock to do the placement
> test, and takes it again to do the removal.  Might even be racy.
Agreed. The check & remove should be done as an atomic operation.
This can be taken up as a separate patch.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists