Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:12 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
This may cause a use-after-free since __dev_addr_delete frees the address
when all references are gone.
How about a comment then? Perhaps:
diff --git a/net/core/dev_mcast.c b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
index ae35405..63576aa 100644
--- a/net/core/dev_mcast.c
+++ b/net/core/dev_mcast.c
@@ -165,16 +165,23 @@ void dev_mc_unsync(struct net_device *to, struct net_device *from)
netif_tx_lock_bh(from);
netif_tx_lock_bh(to);
+ /*
+ This while loop can't be written as
+ for (da = from->mc_list; da; da = da->next)
+ da = from->mc_list and __dev_addr_delete can kfree(from->mc_list)
+ which could cause a use-after-free of da->next
+ */
Seems unnecessary to me, we also don't comment each list_for_each_entry_safe
iteration. I consider the use of a seperate next variable self-explanatory.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
