From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:24:12 +0200
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > index 4b81b71171b4ce..8ab270d5ce5507 100644 > --- a/net/core/filter.c > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > @@ -1166,7 +1166,8 @@ static int __sk_attach_prog(struct bpf_prog > *prog, struct sock *sk) > } > > old_fp = rcu_dereference_protected(sk->sk_filter, > - sock_owned_by_user(sk)); > + lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || > + lockdep_sock_is_held(sk)); > rcu_assign_pointer(sk->sk_filter, fp); > > if (old_fp) I have the same objections Daniel did. Not all socket filter clients use RTNL as the synchornization mechanism. The caller, or some descriptive element, should tell us what that synchronizing element is. Yes, I understand how these RTNL checks can pass "accidently" but the opposite is true too. A socket locking synchornizing user, who didn't lock the socket, might now pass because RTNL happens to be held elsewhere. Constraining the test properly, based upon the user, makes this less likely to happen. And that's desirable.
