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, 26 Apr 2016 18:11:07 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: fix shared futex operations on nommu

* Rich Felker | 2016-04-26 11:53:44 [-0400]:

>The whole shared futex logic is meaningless for nommu. Perhaps I
>should have written a better message, though.
>
>With MMU, shared futex keys need to identify the physical backing for
>a memory address because it may be mapped at different addresses in
>different processes (or even multiple times in the same process).
>Without MMU this cannot happen. You only have physical addresses. So
>the "private futex" behavior of using the virtual address as the key
>is always correct (for both shared and private cases) on nommu
>systems.

So using a shared futex on NOMMU does work but it would be more
efficient to always use a private futex instead.
Is this what you are saying?

>Rich

Sebastian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ