On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:57:59PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guillaume Nault
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:59:40 +0100
>
> > Testing ->private_data without lock in ppp_ioctl() before calling
> > ppp_unattached_ioctl() is fine, because either ->private_data is
> > not NULL and thus is stabl
From: Guillaume Nault
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:59:40 +0100
> Testing ->private_data without lock in ppp_ioctl() before calling
> ppp_unattached_ioctl() is fine, because either ->private_data is
> not NULL and thus is stable, or it is and ppp_unattached_ioctl()
> takes care of not overriding ->pr
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:42:16PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Guillaume Nault
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:14:30 +0100
>
> > Lock ppp_mutex and check that file->private_data is NULL before
> > executing any action in ppp_unattached_ioctl().
> > The test done by ppp_ioctl() can't be relied u
From: Guillaume Nault
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:14:30 +0100
> Lock ppp_mutex and check that file->private_data is NULL before
> executing any action in ppp_unattached_ioctl().
> The test done by ppp_ioctl() can't be relied upon, because
> file->private_data may have been updated meanwhile. In whic
Lock ppp_mutex and check that file->private_data is NULL before
executing any action in ppp_unattached_ioctl().
The test done by ppp_ioctl() can't be relied upon, because
file->private_data may have been updated meanwhile. In which case
ppp_unattached_ioctl() will override file->private_data and me
