Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

[ATM]: fix possible recursive locking in skb_migrate()

Browse source 
ok this is a real potential deadlock in a way, it takes two locks of 2
skbuffs without doing any kind of lock ordering; I think the following
patch should fix it. Just sort the lock taking order by address of the
skb.. it's not pretty but it's the best this can do in a minimally
invasive way.

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chas Williams <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
Arjan van de Ven 2006-07-08 13:30:52 -07:00 committed by David S. Miller
parent 00181fc946
commit 1252ecf63f
1 changed files with 11 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
net/atm/ipcommon.c
View file

@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
/*
* skb_migrate appends the list at "from" to "to", emptying "from" in the
* process. skb_migrate is atomic with respect to all other skb operations on
* "from" and "to". Note that it locks both lists at the same time, so beware
* of potential deadlocks.
* "from" and "to". Note that it locks both lists at the same time, so to deal
* with the lock ordering, the locks are taken in address order.
*
* This function should live in skbuff.c or skbuff.h.
*/
@ -39,8 +39,13 @@ void skb_migrate(struct sk_buff_head *from,struct sk_buff_head *to)
struct sk_buff *skb_to = (struct sk_buff *) to;
struct sk_buff *prev;
if ((unsigned long) from < (unsigned long) to) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&from->lock, flags);
spin_lock(&to->lock);
spin_lock_nested(&to->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
} else {
spin_lock_irqsave(&to->lock, flags);
spin_lock_nested(&from->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
}
prev = from->prev;
from->next->prev = to->prev;
prev->next = skb_to;