netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: dev: Detect dev_hold() after netdev_wait

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: <CANn89i+k4tiyQtb6fh8USDjhZGVwdx1puh8cr9NcDQECbvJvdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:23:03 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dev: Detect dev_hold() after netdev_wait_allrefs()

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 03:14:14 +0100 Jann Horn wrote:
> > Oh. Whoops. That's what I get for only testing without CONFIG_PCPU_DEV_REFCNT...
> >
> > I guess a better place to put the new check would be directly after
> > checking for "dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING"? Like this?
>
> Possibly a very silly suggestion but perhaps we should set
> the pointer to NULL for the pcpu case and let it crash?

It is already set to 0