netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
@ 2005-04-03 16:13 Patrick McHardy
  2005-04-04  1:20 ` Herbert Xu
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2005-04-03 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David S. Miller; +Cc: Herbert Xu, netdev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 131 bytes --]

xfrm_user_policy() is called from ip_setsockopt with enabled
BHs, so it needs to protect against them when grabbing
xfrm_km_lock.


[-- Attachment #2: x --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
#   2005/04/03 17:36:10+02:00 kaber@coreworks.de 
#   [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
#   
#   Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
# 
# net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
#   2005/04/03 17:36:00+02:00 kaber@coreworks.de +2 -2
#   [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
#   
#   Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
# 
diff -Nru a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c	2005-04-03 18:04:38 +02:00
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c	2005-04-03 18:04:38 +02:00
@@ -878,14 +878,14 @@
 		goto out;
 
 	err = -EINVAL;
-	read_lock(&xfrm_km_lock);
+	read_lock_bh(&xfrm_km_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(km, &xfrm_km_list, list) {
 		pol = km->compile_policy(sk->sk_family, optname, data,
 					 optlen, &err);
 		if (err >= 0)
 			break;
 	}
-	read_unlock(&xfrm_km_lock);
+	read_unlock_bh(&xfrm_km_lock);
 
 	if (err >= 0) {
 		xfrm_sk_policy_insert(sk, err, pol);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
  2005-04-03 16:13 [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy() Patrick McHardy
@ 2005-04-04  1:20 ` Herbert Xu
  2005-04-04  3:47   ` Patrick McHardy
  2005-04-04 11:55   ` Herbert Xu
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-04-04  1:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> # This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
> #
> # ChangeSet
> #   2005/04/03 17:36:10+02:00 kaber@coreworks.de 
> #   [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
> #   
> #   Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>

Looks good.

Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

We want the same thing for km_query, no?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
  2005-04-04  1:20 ` Herbert Xu
@ 2005-04-04  3:47   ` Patrick McHardy
  2005-04-04  4:06     ` Herbert Xu
  2005-04-04 11:55   ` Herbert Xu
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2005-04-04  3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Herbert Xu; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Herbert Xu wrote:
> We want the same thing for km_query, no?

In all other places were BHs are not explicitly disabled
but need to be they are already disabled by the caller,
so I left them as they are.

Regards
Patrick

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
  2005-04-04  3:47   ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2005-04-04  4:06     ` Herbert Xu
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-04-04  4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:47:44AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >We want the same thing for km_query, no?
> 
> In all other places were BHs are not explicitly disabled
> but need to be they are already disabled by the caller,
> so I left them as they are.

Yes you're right.  I missed the spin_lock_bh in xfrm_state_find.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
  2005-04-04  1:20 ` Herbert Xu
  2005-04-04  3:47   ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2005-04-04 11:55   ` Herbert Xu
  2005-04-04 17:35     ` David S. Miller
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-04-04 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:20:40AM +1000, herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > # This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
> > #
> > # ChangeSet
> > #   2005/04/03 17:36:10+02:00 kaber@coreworks.de 
> > #   [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
> > #   
> > #   Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Actually, I now think this patch is unnecessary for mainline.

The read_lock()'s only need to be protected from the write_lock()'s.

Since all the write_lock()'s are made in process context, we don't
need to disable BH on the read_lock()'s.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
  2005-04-04 11:55   ` Herbert Xu
@ 2005-04-04 17:35     ` David S. Miller
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 2005-04-04 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Herbert Xu; +Cc: kaber, netdev

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:55:08 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> The read_lock()'s only need to be protected from the write_lock()'s.
> 
> Since all the write_lock()'s are made in process context, we don't
> need to disable BH on the read_lock()'s.

This is correct.

It's actually a common technique, only disable IRQ or BH in
the write_locks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2005-04-04 17:35 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-04-03 16:13 [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy() Patrick McHardy
2005-04-04  1:20 ` Herbert Xu
2005-04-04  3:47   ` Patrick McHardy
2005-04-04  4:06     ` Herbert Xu
2005-04-04 11:55   ` Herbert Xu
2005-04-04 17:35     ` David S. Miller

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).