netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] mptcp: add MPTCP socket diag interface

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: <20200709114407.2f85a2a8@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:44:07 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, mptcp@...ts.01.org,
        Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] mptcp: add MPTCP socket diag interface

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 20:00:09 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 10:34 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu,  9 Jul 2020 15:12:41 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:  
> > > exposes basic inet socket attribute, plus some MPTCP socket
> > > fields comprising PM status and MPTCP-level sequence numbers.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>  
> > 
> > Any idea why sparse says this:
> > 
> > include/net/sock.h:1612:31: warning: context imbalance in 'mptcp_diag_get_info' - unexpected unlock
> > 
> > ? 🤨  
> 
> AFAICS, that is a sparse false positive, tied
> to unlock_sock_fast() usage. 
> 
> unlock_sock_fast() conditionally releases the socket lock, according to
> it's bool argument, and that fools sparse check: any unlock_sock_fast()
> user splats it.
> 
> IMHO such warning should be addressed into [un]lock_sock_fast()
> function[s] - if possible at all. Outside the scope of this series.
> 
> Matthieu suggested adding some comment to note the above, but I boldly
> opposed, as current unlock_sock_fast() users don't do that.

Sounds reasonable, thanks!