linux-kernel - Re: first little problem with private futexes

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]

Message-ID: <46509924.8020904@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 20:53:24 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: first little problem with private futexes

Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Here's a first little issue with private futex I came across.  But a
> real bug but a hole.
> 
> When we use clone() with CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID possible waiters are woken
> upon termination of the thread.  This operation uses FUTEX_WAKE so far.
>  But it in almost all cases local memory and I would even be in favor of
> setting this into stone.   It wouldn't break anything I know of.
> 
> The problem is we cannot just go over to using
> FUTEX_WAIT|FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG since this would break binaries using any
> glibc out there so far.
> 
> There are three ways out of this I can see:
> 
> 1.  do nothing, always use the shared futexes.  Not very attractive IMO

Why do you find this non attractive ?

How is it performance critical ?

If a program is stupid enough to create/destroy many threads per second, I 
doubt it relies on a faster thread termination :)

> 
> 2.  try private futexes first, then shared one.  This is even less
>     attractive since in the many cases there is no waiter and we cannot
>     determine whether the private futex notification succeeded and we're
>     doing the expensive work as well
> 
> 3.  tell the kernel whether we want the new or the old notification.
>     This can be done using a number of ways
> 
>     a) using some prctl().  Another unconditional syscall, not nice.
> 
>     b) using a new CLONE_* flag.  We have currently 5 bits left and can
>        recover two more (CLONE_DETACHED, CLONE_STOPPED).  And we can
>        invent ways to add more bits.
> 
> 
> I'm in favor of 3b but if somebody argues the costs are not justified
> because the effects of using the shared futex notification isn't high
> enough I can accept that, too.

-
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/