From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/packet: fix a race in packet_bind() and
 packet_notifier()
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:13:01 -0800
Message-ID: <1511881981.16595.13.camel@gmail.com>
References: <1511841652.16595.11.camel@gmail.com>
         <CA+HUmGh4CGPOmDDAkRy165NTf9PDQkBEY2Da41VZFoVZBBBHxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@aristanetworks.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
To: Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@arista.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f67.google.com ([209.85.160.67]:45427 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752050AbdK1PNE (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:13:04 -0500
Received: by mail-pl0-f67.google.com with SMTP id f6so69509pln.12
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:13:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HUmGh4CGPOmDDAkRy165NTf9PDQkBEY2Da41VZFoVZBBBHxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 02:23 -0800, Francesco Ruggeri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > 
> > 
...
> > +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ static void register_prot_hook(struct sock *sk)
> >  {
> >         struct packet_sock *po = pkt_sk(sk);
> > 
> > -       if (!po->running) {
> > +       if (!po->running && !po->frozen) {
> 
> Would it make sense to move the check for po->frozen to
> packet_notifier(NETDEV_UP)?
> As far as I can tell that is the only case today that can cause this
> race condition, and if new cases come up in the future an error code
> may be required rather than silently turning register_prot_hook()
> into
> a noop.
> Otherwise it looks fine to me.
> 

Whatever works for me is fine, I have no strong opinion on this.

Note that frozen is only set in the case we know that
register_prot_hook() is going to be called by us.