linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] ipc/sem.c: make semctl(,,{GETNCNT,GETZCNT}) standard compliant

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140520120151.3cc813026fc73fbeb85ba1dc@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 12:01:51 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, 1vier1@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ipc/sem.c: make semctl(,,{GETNCNT,GETZCNT})
 standard compliant

On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:30:05 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 05/20/2014 12:46 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:58:37 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> wrote:
> >
> >> SUSv4 clearly defines how semncnt and semzcnt must be calculated:
> >> A task waits on exactly one semaphore:
> >> The semaphore from the first operation in the sop array that cannot proceed.
> >>
> >> The Linux implementation never followed the standard, it tried to count all
> >> semaphores that might be the reason why a task sleeps.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes that.
> > What are the back-compatibility implications of this change?
> A really good question:
> - there is no application in Fedora that uses GETNCNT or GETZCNT.
> - application that use only single-sop semop() are also safe, the 
> difference only affects complex apps.
> - portable application are also safe, the new behavior is standard 
> compliant.
> 
> But that's it. The old behavior existed in Linux from 0.99.something 
> until now.

OK, thanks - I slurped your thoughts and Michael's into the changelog
for posterity.

> What about adding a WARN_ON_ONCE() if the case where the behavior 
> differs happens?
> Should I write a patch?

That sounds prudent.
--
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/