linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] futex: add double_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1236852455.5090.105.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:07:35 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] futex: add double_unlock_hb()

On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:55 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> The futex code uses double_lock_hb() which locks the hb->lock's in pointer
> value order.  There is no parallel unlock routine, and the code unlocks them
> in name order, ignoring pointer value.  This opens up a window for an ABBA
> deadlock.  This patch adds double_unlock_hb() to remove the window as well
> as refactor the duplicated code segments.

While I don't mind the patch per-se, I'm hard pressed to see any
deadlock potential in the unordered unlock.

All sites (at least those in the patch) always release both locks
without taking another in between, therefore one would think there's no
deadlock possible.


--
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/