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:	Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:42:05 +0200
From:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC:	Jia He <jiakernel@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: fix update sem_otime when calling sem_op in
 semaphore initialization

Hi all,

On 09/22/2013 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
>>> In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's sem_otime(last semop time)
>>> was removed because he wanted to move setting sem->sem_otime to one
>>> place. But after that, the initial semop() will not set the otime
>>> because its sem_op value is 0(in semtimedop,will not change
>>> otime if alter == 1).
>>>
>>> the error case:
>>> process_a(server)       process_b(client)
>>> semget()
>>> semctl(SETVAL)
>>> semop()
>>>                          semget()
>>>                          setctl(IP_STAT)
>>>                          for(;;) {               <--not successful here
>>>                            check until sem_otime > 0
>>>                          }
Good catch:
Since commit 0a2b9d4c, wait-for-zero semops do not update sem_otime anymore.

Let's reverse that part of my commit and move the update of sem_otime 
back into perform_atomic_semop().

Jia: If perform_atomic_semop() updates sem_otime, then the update in 
do_smart_update() is not necessary anymore.
Thus the whole logic with passing arround "semop_completed" can be 
removed, too.
Are you interested in writing that patch?


>> Why not..
> (pokes evolution's don't-munge-me button)
>
> ipc,sem: Create semaphores with plausible sem_otime.
Mike: no, your patch makes it worse:
- wait-for-zero semops still don't update sem_otime
- sem_otime is initialized to sem_ctime. That's not mentioned in the 
sysv standard.

--
     Manfred
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ