netdev - Re: [PATCH] Remove extra unlock for the mutex

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, 12 Oct 2023 00:37:37 +0530
From: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
 dsahern@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove extra unlock for the mutex

On 10/11/23 23:13, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> There is no undefined behavior, only sparse that might be confused a little.
> 
> I do not think we can express in sparse the fact that
> inet_csk_find_open_port() acquires head->lock
> 
> (head being the return value of this function...)
> 
> The following does not help.
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index aeebe881668996057d1495c84eee0f0b644b7ad0..ed7b3993316cd1ba0b2859b0bd3f447e066bd3b5
> 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -323,6 +323,7 @@ static struct inet_bind_hashbucket *
>   inet_csk_find_open_port(const struct sock *sk, struct
> inet_bind_bucket **tb_ret,
>                          struct inet_bind2_bucket **tb2_ret,
>                          struct inet_bind_hashbucket **head2_ret, int *port_ret)
> +       __acquires(head->lock)
>   {
>          struct inet_hashinfo *hinfo = tcp_or_dccp_get_hashinfo(sk);
>          int i, low, high, attempt_half, port, l3mdev;

Okay got it. Thank you for your time maintainers.And apologizes for not 
thoroughly checking before sending the patch. I have a question, there 
were some type checking warning as well from sparse tool. Can a create 
patch for fixing those type checking warning?