[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406170025510.5170@nanos>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:28:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>, wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] futex: Make unlock_pi more robust
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 20:45 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > In wake_futex_pi we verify ownership by matching pi_state->owner ==
> > current, but here the only test is the TID value, which is set by
> > userspace - which we don't trust...
> >
> > I'm trying to determine if it matters in this case... if there are no
> > waiters, is the pi_state still around? If so, it does indeed matter, and
> > we should be verifying.
>
> Erm. The whole point of this patch is to do:
>
> - Find existing state first and handle it.
>
> - If no state exists and TID == current, take it
>
> - Otherwise create state
Duh, that was the lock path. But here the point is:
- Find existing state first and handle it.
- If no state exists and TID == current, release it
The retry is obvious, right?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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