From: Guillaume Nault
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:16:55 +0100
> Understood. Just to be sure, does patch #2 falls under lack of
> demonstration? Or should I repost it separately?
Please repost it if you feel this way, with the race and corruption
possibility explained in detail in the commit log me
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 03:32:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guillaume Nault
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:47:13 +0100
>
> > PPP's Tx and Rx paths read ppp->mru under protection of ppp_xmit_lock()
> > and ppp_recv_lock() respectively.
> > Therefore ppp_ioctl() must hold the xmit and recv l
From: Guillaume Nault
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:47:13 +0100
> PPP's Tx and Rx paths read ppp->mru under protection of ppp_xmit_lock()
> and ppp_recv_lock() respectively.
> Therefore ppp_ioctl() must hold the xmit and recv locks before
> concurrently updating ppp->mru.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guillaum
PPP's Tx and Rx paths read ppp->mru under protection of ppp_xmit_lock()
and ppp_recv_lock() respectively.
Therefore ppp_ioctl() must hold the xmit and recv locks before
concurrently updating ppp->mru.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault
---
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 ins
