linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT] fix faulting bomb in futex_unlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <a36005b50705311020w45094035uae4b63091d60ab7d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2007 10:20:11 -0700
From:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To:	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Sripathi Kodi" <sripathik@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] fix faulting bomb in futex_unlock_pi64

On 5/30/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> But, the -rt kernel has pretty much the same code for the
> futex_unlock_pi64, and it has the same bug.

Why would you use futex_unlock_pi64?

In fact, the whole 64-bit futex patch should be reviewed and cut down
to the bare minimum. I know, I was asking for it loudly but it became
to Jakub and me after adding the private futexes that all these
orthogonal extensions don't make sense.  So far we need 64-bit futexes
only for some rwlocks and here only a few operations (wait, wake).  We
don't need 64-bit extended to PI, we don't need requeue.

Yes, if we had started out with 64-bit futexes on 64-bit platforms,
that would be fine.  But as it is today making 64-bit a new dimension
is not needed.
-
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/