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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWGyJcx2o=HUWoyB+E-7Z1y9LEwb362TTLGxrwuz9yULg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:06:45 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next] unix_bpf: fix a potential deadlock in unix_dgram_bpf_recvmsg()

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:12 AM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a reason to grab the mutex_lock(u->iolock) above the
> skb_queue_emptyaand sk_psock_queue_empty checks?
>
> Could it be move here just above the msg_bytes_ready label?

The check of the receive queue is more accurate with lock.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ