[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6dfcdb8b562c567995ae9786ab399a1f3a24c62a.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:44:58 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Billy
Jheng Bing-Jhong
<billy@...rlabs.sg>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] af_unix: Update unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb under
sk_receive_queue lock.
On Fri, 2024-05-10 at 18:39 +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
> index 0104be9d4704..b87e48e2b51b 100644
> --- a/net/unix/garbage.c
> +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
> @@ -342,10 +342,12 @@ static void __unix_gc(struct work_struct *work)
> scan_children(&u->sk, inc_inflight, &hitlist);
>
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AF_UNIX_OOB)
> + spin_lock(&u->sk.sk_receive_queue.lock);
> if (u->oob_skb) {
> - kfree_skb(u->oob_skb);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(skb_unref(u->oob_skb));
Sorry for not asking this first, but it's not clear to me why the above
change (just the 'WARN_ON_ONCE' introduction) is needed and if it's
related to the addressed issue???
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists