On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:49 AM Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> On 24/06/20(Wed) 19:54, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:02 AM Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > > Yes, that might be a better way.  If I understood your original mail the
> > > issue is related to ifunit(), right?  ifunit() is not used in packet-
> > > processing contexts, that's why we did not protect it by the NET_LOCK().
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if all the ifunit() usages are necessary, many of them are
> > > certainly exposing races with attach/destroy.
> >
> > No, not _just_ ifunit, but ifunit is one of the places where this is
> > hit. But just one.
> Which ones then?  I'd be delighted if you could share those facts.

You make it sound as if I'm deliberately concealing it in order to
dangle a tasty orange in front of you, but that's not what I meant.
Just look around in the source code at all of the code that uses an
ifp outside of a reference count or other locking semantics. Grepping
around, for example, I found

There's lots of interesting behavior in there, and a pretty good
indication that you really don't want ioctls racing with either clone
or destroy, which is what my patch fixes.

Reply via email to