linux-kernel - Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability

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, 16 Apr 2013 16:30:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	hhuang@...hat.com, "Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:35:33 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Do we need the locking at all?  What does it actually do?
> 
> 			sem_lock_and_putref(sma);
> 			if (sma->sem_perm.deleted) {
> 				sem_unlock(sma, -1);
> 				err = -EIDRM;
> 				goto out_free;
> 			}
> 			sem_unlock(sma, -1);
> 
> We're taking the lock, testing an int and then dropping the lock. 
> What's the point in that?

Rikpoke.

The new semctl_main() is now taking a lock, testing
sma->sem_perm.deleted then dropping that lock.  It looks wrong.  What
is that lock testing against?  What prevents .deleted from changing
value 1ns after we dropped that lock?

--
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/