lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux-2.4.0-test10
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 08:55:13PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > What about the fact anyone can crash a box using ioctls on net
> > devices and waiting for an unload - was this fixed ?

> The ioctls of network devices are generally unsafe on SMP, because
> they run with kernel lock dropped now but are mostly not safe to do so.

Wrong. The BLK is dropped in sock_ioctl, but struct netdevice::do_ioctl
is called with rtnl_lock held:

net/core/dev.c:
rtnl_lock();
ret = dev_ifsioc(&ifr, cmd);
rtnl_unlock();

Therefore for 2.4.x, our concern is whether a particular net driver
needs further SMP protection internally, or if rtnl_lock (a semaphore,
not a spinlock) is sufficient.

Jeff


--
Jeff Garzik | "Mind if I drive?" -Sam
Building 1024 | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft | dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
| -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site