[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140609142956.3d79e9d1@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:29:56 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand
unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:15:53 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > That would indeed be a bad thing, as it could potentially lead to
> > use-after-free bugs. Though one could argue that any code that resulted
> > in use-after-free would be quite aggressive. But still...
>
> And once again, note that the normal mutex is already unsafe (unless I missed
> something).
Is it unsafe?
This thread was started because of a bug we triggered in -rt, which
ended up being a change specific to -rt that modified the way slub
handled SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. What else was wrong with it?
-- Steve
--
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