netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Fix suspicious RCU usage in bpf_sk_reuseport

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220817164209.72c182fb@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:42:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix suspicious RCU usage in
 bpf_sk_reuseport_detach()

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 21:55:49 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this
> > field is. 
> > 
> > In fact should we also add && sock_owned_by_user(). Martin, WDYT? Would
> > that work for reuseport? Jakub S is fixing l2tp to hold the socket lock
> > while setting this field, yet most places take the callback lock...  
> 
> So how do you want to proceed?  My first version of the patch with
> sock_owned_by_user()?

Sorry about the lack of clarity. I was sort of expecting the name 
to still be shortened, but what you have is probably good enough.

Applying v1, then, thanks!