On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:56 PM Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
>
> On 9/10/2018 5:45 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:26 PM Santosh Shilimkar
> > wrote:
> >> Would you mind posting an updated patch please with call_rcu and
> >> above extended RCU grace period with rcu_read_lock. Thank
On 9/10/2018 5:45 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:26 PM Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
Would you mind posting an updated patch please with call_rcu and
above extended RCU grace period with rcu_read_lock. Thanks !!
If you prefer to fix _two_ problems in one patch, sure.
For the recor
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:26 PM Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> Would you mind posting an updated patch please with call_rcu and
> above extended RCU grace period with rcu_read_lock. Thanks !!
If you prefer to fix _two_ problems in one patch, sure.
For the record, the bug this patch fixes is NOT same
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:24 PM Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
>
> On (09/10/18 17:16), Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > __rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
> > > > - rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms)
On 9/10/2018 5:16 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:04 PM Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
__rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
- rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
+ rcu_read_lock();
+
On (09/10/18 17:16), Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > __rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
> > > - rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + rs = rhashtable_lookup(&
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:04 PM Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
>
> On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > __rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
> > - rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + rs = rhashtable_loo
On (09/10/18 16:51), Cong Wang wrote:
>
> __rds_create_bind_key(key, addr, port, scope_id);
> - rs = rhashtable_lookup_fast(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + rs = rhashtable_lookup(&bind_hash_table, key, ht_parms);
> if (rs && !sock_flag(r
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:30 PM Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
>
> On (09/10/18 15:43), Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > On 9/10/2018 3:24 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > >When a rds sock is bound, it is inserted into the bind_hash_table
> > >which is protected by RCU. But when releasing rd sock, after it
> > >is r
On (09/10/18 15:43), Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On 9/10/2018 3:24 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> >When a rds sock is bound, it is inserted into the bind_hash_table
> >which is protected by RCU. But when releasing rd sock, after it
> >is removed from this hash table, it is freed immediately without
> >respe
On 9/10/2018 3:24 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
When a rds sock is bound, it is inserted into the bind_hash_table
which is protected by RCU. But when releasing rd sock, after it
is removed from this hash table, it is freed immediately without
respecting RCU grace period. This could cause some use-after-fr
On (09/10/18 15:24), Cong Wang wrote:
>
> When a rds sock is bound, it is inserted into the bind_hash_table
> which is protected by RCU. But when releasing rd sock, after it
> is removed from this hash table, it is freed immediately without
> respecting RCU grace period. This could cause some use-
When a rds sock is bound, it is inserted into the bind_hash_table
which is protected by RCU. But when releasing rd sock, after it
is removed from this hash table, it is freed immediately without
respecting RCU grace period. This could cause some use-after-free
as reported by syzbot.
Mark the rds s
13 matches
Mail list logo
