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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:28:20 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, liali <liali@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] bonding: access curr_active_slave with rtnl_dereference On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:58:59AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 11:13 AM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote: > > > > Looks commit 4740d6382790 ("bonding: add proper __rcu annotation for > > curr_active_slave") missed rtnl_dereference for curr_active_slave > > in bond_miimon_commit(). > > > > Fixes: 4740d6382790 ("bonding: add proper __rcu annotation for curr_active_slave") > > > > Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > index b9a882f182d2..2b6cc4dbb70e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > @@ -2689,7 +2689,7 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond) > > > > bond_miimon_link_change(bond, slave, BOND_LINK_UP); > > > > - if (!bond->curr_active_slave || slave == primary) > > + if (!rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave) || slave == primary) > > We do not dereference the pointer here. > > If this is fixing a sparse issue, then use the correct RCU helper for this. > > ( rcu_access_pointer()) Hmm... I saw in 4740d6382790 ("bonding: add proper __rcu annotation for curr_active_slave") there are also some dereference like that. Should I also fix them at the same time? e.g. @@ -2607,8 +2612,8 @@ static void bond_ab_arp_commit(struct bonding *bond) case BOND_LINK_UP: trans_start = dev_trans_start(slave->dev); - if (bond->curr_active_slave != slave || - (!bond->curr_active_slave && + if (rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave) != slave || + (!rtnl_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave) && Thanks Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists