linux-kernel - Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp

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:	Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:52:41 -0700
From:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	frank@...t.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 14:27 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> And, you guessed it, the invariant gets violated.  Apparently the passed
> task_struct isn't the same as "current" at this point.
> 
> Any ideas?  Am I checking the wrong thing?  If we're really not updating
> current then the task we are updating could very easily be running
> through __exit_signal() on another CPU.  (And while I wait for your
> response I will of course continue to try to figure this out.)

Found the exception.  do_fork() violates the invariant when it's
cranking up a new process.  Hmmm.
-- 
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.

--
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/