linux-kernel - Re: Thread flags modified without set_thread

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:04:24 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...gle.com>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Thread flags modified without set_thread_flag() (non
 atomically)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:40:33 +0100
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:

> > It does seem risky.  Perhaps it is a micro-optimisation which utilises
> > knowledge that this thread_struct cannot be looked up via any path in this
> > context.
> > 
> > Or perhaps it is a bug.  Andi, can you please comment?
> 
> On flush_thread nobody else can mess with the thread,

What about resched_task()?

> so yes it's a micro
> optimization.
> 
> > 
> > > And about this specific flush_thread, I am puzzled about the t->flags ^= 
> > > (_TIF_ABI_PENDING | _TIF_IA32); line. The XOR will clearly flip the 
> > > _TIF_ABI_PENDING bit to 0, and very likely set _TIF_IA32 to the opposite 
> > > of its current value. Why does this change need to be written atomically 
> > > (can other threads play with these flags ?) ?
> > > 
> > 
> > Don't know.
> 
> iirc it came from DaveM originally. He just likes to write things in 
> comp^wclever ways :0) It's just a little shorter.
> 
> > No, I don't immediately see anything in the flush_old_exec() code path
> > which tells us that nobody else can look up this thread_info (or be holding
> > a ref to it) in this context.
> 
> Normally the process flags atomicity should only matter with signals;

Thread flags.  yes, most of them are synchronously set by their owner, but
not all, I think.


> i don't think you can send a signal to a process being in exec this way.
> 
> -Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/