Hello,
I'm studying the implementation of sk_buff and I think there's a
possible race condition in skb_clone (2.6.22.9)
The code is:
struct sk_buff *skb_clone(struct sk_buff *skb, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
struct sk_buff *n;
n = skb + 1;
if (skb->fclone == SKB_FCLONE_ORIG &&
n->fclone == SKB_FCLONE_UNAVAILABLE) {
atomic_t *fclone_ref = (atomic_t *) (n + 1);
n->fclone = SKB_FCLONE_CLONE;
atomic_inc(fclone_ref);
} else {
n = kmem_cache_alloc(skbuff_head_cache, gfp_mask);
if (!n)
return NULL;
n->fclone = SKB_FCLONE_UNAVAILABLE;
}
If an skb with fast clone available (first "if" true) has
references in different CPUs (skb->users>1) (I do not find explicit
checks for this to be impossible), if skb_clone is called
simultaneously over that skb, both callers can get the same clone (the
"fast" clone) and different problems follow: wrong "clone_skb->users"
(1 as expected by the caller, but it should be, to be true, 2),
fclone_ref set to 3 involving further problems, ...
IMO, the same problem arises although the calls to skb_clone are
not simultaneous: there isn´t a memory barrier after the change of
"n->fclone" to guarantee the visibility of that change to other CPUs
(but that barrier will not solve anything; I mentioned this only to
reflect another reason I see for the race to happen).
Is that correct? Thank you in advance.
Santiago Font Arquer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
