linux-kernel - Re: [TIP][RFC 4/7] futex: finish_futex_lock

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903071625180.29264@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 7 Mar 2009 16:30:43 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
cc:	"lkml, " <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@...ibm.com>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [TIP][RFC 4/7] futex: finish_futex_lock_pi()

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
> +	} else {
> +		/* dvhart FIXME: can't we just BUG_ON in this case?

No. There is no reason to crash the kernel if this happens. All what
happens is that a userspace application becomes a bit unhappy.

I did not put a WARN_ON there as the stack trace is known, but we
could do a WARN to trigger the kerneloops detector.

> +		 * Paranoia check. If we did not take the lock in the trylock
> +		 * above, then we should not be the owner of the rtmutex,
> +		 * neither the real nor the pending one:
> +		 */
> +		if (rt_mutex_owner(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex) == current)
> +			printk(KERN_ERR "finish_futex_lock_pi: "
> +					"ret = %d pi-mutex: %p "
> +					"pi-state %p\n", ret,
> +					q->pi_state->pi_mutex.owner,
> +					q->pi_state->owner);
> +	}

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/