linux-kernel - Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.

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: <4DEE4A32.2080501@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:56:34 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Oliver <david@...advisors.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>,
	Zachary Vonler <zvonler@...advisors.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.



On 06/07/2011 07:44 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 11:13 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/06/2011 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 10:53 -0700, Darren Hart a écrit :
>>>>
>>>
>>>> If I understand the problem correctly, RO private mapping really doesn't
>>>> make any sense and we should probably explicitly not support it, while
>>>> special casing the RO shared mapping in support of David's scenario.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We supported them in 2.6.18 kernels, apparently. This might sounds
>>> stupid but who knows ?
>>
>>
>> I guess this is actually the key point we need to agree on to provide a
>> solution. This particular case "worked" in 2.6.18 kernels, but that
>> doesn't necessarily mean it was supported, or even intentional.
>>
>> It sounds to me that we agree that we should support RO shared mappings.
>> The question remains about whether we should introduce deliberate
>> support of RO private mappings, and if so, if the forced COW approach is
>> appropriate or not.
>>
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> FUTEX_WAIT has side-effects.  Specifically, it eats one wakeup sent by 
> FUTEX_WAKE.  So if something uses futexes on a file mapping, then a 
> process with only read access could (if the semantics were changed) DoS 
> the other processes by spawning a bunch of threads and FUTEX_WAITing 
> from each of them.
> 
> If there were a FUTEX_WAIT_NOCONSUME that did not consume a wakeup and 
> worked on RO mappings, I would drop my objection.


This sounds like an argument for properly managing file permissions and
carefully selecting the mapping backing your futex word - but I don't
see this as compelling rationale to disable RO support entirely and
certainly not to add yet another futex op code.


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
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/