netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/8] tcp: Add missing annotation for tcp_child

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: <alpine.LFD.2.21.2003110127440.25519@ninjahub.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
From:   Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
cc:     Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] tcp: Add missing annotation for
 tcp_child_process()

Thanks for the feedbacks. Good to know I have not used lockdep but I will 
try it.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sparse reports warning at tcp_child_process()
> > warning: context imbalance in tcp_child_process() - unexpected unlock
> > The root cause is the missing annotation at tcp_child_process()
> >
> > Add the missing __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock)) annotation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > index ad3b56d9fa71..0e8a5b6e477c 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > @@ -817,6 +817,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_check_req);
> >
> >  int tcp_child_process(struct sock *parent, struct sock *child,
> >                       struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +       __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock))
> >  {
> >         int ret = 0;
> >         int state = child->sk_state;
> 
> 
> Yeah, although we prefer to use lockdep these days ;)
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>