netdev - Re: [PATCH net] can: raw: fix receiver memory leak

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 20:29:05 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: "Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com>,
 mkl@...gutronix.de, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] can: raw: fix receiver memory leak

On 06.07.23 14:48, Ziyang Xuan (William) wrote:

(..)

>>>        }
>>>       out:
>>>        release_sock(sk);
>>> +    rtnl_unlock();
>>
>> Would it also fix the issue when just adding the rtnl_locks to raw_bind() and raw_release() as suggested by you?
> 
> This patch just add rtnl_lock in raw_bind() and raw_release(). raw_setsockopt() has rtnl_lock before this. raw_notify()
> is under rtnl_lock. My patch has been tested and solved the issue before send. I don't know if it answered your doubts.

My question was whether adding rtnl_locks to raw_bind() and 
raw_release() would be enough to fix the issue.

Without introducing the additional ro->dev element!?

Best regards,
Oliver