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: <20220330135217.b6d0433831f2b3fa420458ae@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:52:17 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com> Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29 On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, > > > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree. > > > > > > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain > > > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-). > > > > > > The main changes are: > > > > > > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter. > > > > > > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus. > > > > > > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others. > > > > There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit. > > As in harmless but not erroneous. > > Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right? > > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces): > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... ) > > kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: void ( * )( ... ) > > > > 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh) > > 67 { > > 68 rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL); > > 69 > > 70 call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu); > > 71 } > > > > Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ? > > Masami, please take a look. Yeah, I think we should make this rcu pointer (and read side must use rcu_dereference()) because this rh->handler becomes the key to disable this rethook. Let me fix that. Thanks, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists