| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:59:45 -0700 From: Bryan Henderson <hbryan@...ibm.com> To: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee> Subject: Re: file offset corruption on 32-bit machines? >So if you write multithreaded code and don't understand what locking >around shared resources is for, then your application might break. I think I know what locking around shared resources is for, which is why I'm surprised the kernel doesn't do it. Is it normal for a kernel resource not to be thread-safe (i.e. you don't get advertised/sensible results if two threads access it at the same time)? >Can you give an example where locking is being used correctly where this can >possibly fail? I could accept (though I haven't thought about it) that there aren't any real-world applications that do simultaneous reads and writes through the same file pointer. I might even accept that there can be no useful application that does. But can you say such an application is incorrect? -- Bryan Henderson IBM Almaden Research Center San Jose CA Filesystems -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists