[PATCH] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket [message #12043] |
Mon, 16 April 2007 11:34 |
xemul
Messages: 248 Registered: November 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From: Denis Lunev <den@openvz.org>
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
callback is freed.
--- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2004-10-25 12:12:23.000000000 +0400
+++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2004-10-28 16:26:12.000000000 +0400
@@ -255,6 +255,7 @@ static int netlink_release(struct socket
return 0;
netlink_remove(sk);
+ sock_orphan(sk);
nlk = nlk_sk(sk);
spin_lock(&nlk->cb_lock);
@@ -269,7 +270,6 @@ static int netlink_release(struct socket
/* OK. Socket is unlinked, and, therefore,
no new packets will arrive */
- sock_orphan(sk);
sock->sk = NULL;
wake_up_interruptible_all(&nlk->wait);
@@ -942,9 +942,9 @@ int netlink_dump_start(struct sock *ssk,
return -ECONNREFUSED;
}
nlk = nlk_sk(sk);
- /* A dump is in progress... */
+ /* A dump or destruction is in progress... */
spin_lock(&nlk->cb_lock);
- if (nlk->cb) {
+ if (nlk->cb || sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)) {
spin_unlock(&nlk->cb_lock);
netlink_destroy_callback(cb);
sock_put(sk);
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [PATCH] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket [message #12049 is a reply to message #12046] |
Mon, 16 April 2007 12:55 |
Patrick McHardy
Messages: 107 Registered: March 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>>There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
>>>that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
>>>callback is freed.
>>
>>
>>Can you describe the race in more detail please?
>>
>
> Here it is:
>
> [...]
> The proposal it to make sock_orphan before detaching the callback
> in netlink_release() and to check for the sock to be SOCK_DEAD in
> netlink_dump_start() before setting a new callback.
Thanks, good catch. Your patch also looks good.
Acked-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
|
|
|
|