linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] futex_unlock_pi() hurts my brain and may cause application deadlock

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:	Wed, 30 May 2007 21:29:53 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] futex_unlock_pi() hurts my brain and may cause
	application deadlock

On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:49 -0700, john stultz wrote:

> ...
> retry_locked:
> 	/*
> 	 * To avoid races, try to do the TID -> 0 atomic transition
> 	 * again. If it succeeds then we can return without waking
> 	 * anyone else up:
> 	 */
> 	if (!(uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED)) {
> 		pagefault_disable();
> 		uval = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(uaddr, current->pid, 0);
> 		pagefault_enable();
> 	}

My question is to all the futex gurus out there.

This code is in futex_unlock_pi.  Can the owner of the mutex really die?
Isn't the owner the one doing the unlock?

-- Steve


-
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/