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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANn89i+NfFLHDthLC-=+vWV6fFSqddVqhnAWE_+mHRD9nQsNyw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 06:31:00 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/11] inet: frags: rework rhashtable dismantle On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:34 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote: > > Hi Eric: > > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > +void fqdir_exit(struct fqdir *fqdir) > > +{ > > + fqdir->high_thresh = 0; /* prevent creation of new frags */ > > + > > + /* paired with READ_ONCE() in inet_frag_kill() : > > + * We want to prevent rhashtable_remove_fast() calls > > + */ > > + smp_store_release(&fqdir->dead, true); > > + > > + INIT_RCU_WORK(&fqdir->destroy_rwork, fqdir_rwork_fn); > > + queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &fqdir->destroy_rwork); > > + > > +} > > What is the smp_store_release supposed to protect here? If it's > meant to separate the setting of dead and the subsequent destruction > work then it doesn't work because the barrier only protects the code > preceding it, not after. > This smp_store_release() is a left over of the first version of the patch, where there was no rcu grace period enforcement. I do not believe there is harm letting this, but if you disagree please send a patch ;) Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists