From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Separate the close_list and the unreg_list v2 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20131007.152238.779958484281422820.davem@davemloft.net> References: <5250c0b6.45dc420a.738b.6a58@mx.google.com> <87txgv9ltu.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fruggeri@aristanetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: ebiederm@xmission.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:35339 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751387Ab3JGTWj (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:22:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87txgv9ltu.fsf@xmission.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 19:26:05 -0700 > > Separate the unreg_list and the close_list in dev_close_many preventing > dev_close_many from permuting the unreg_list. The permutations of the > unreg_list have resulted in cases where the loopback device is accessed > it has been freed in code such as dst_ifdown. Resulting in subtle memory > corruption. > > This is the second bug from sharing the storage between the close_list > and the unreg_list. The issues that crop up with sharing are > apparently too subtle to show up in normal testing or usage, so let's > forget about being clever and use two separate lists. > > v2: Make all callers pass in a close_list to dev_close_many > > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" > --- > > Sending the complete diff because this version is actually more > readable and more obviously correct. I'll apply this, thanks Eric.