[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k18eqtod.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:33:38 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>, Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] futex: extend set_robust_list to allow 2 locking ABIs at the same time.
* Thomas Gleixner:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 11/5/19 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The other issue is this:
>>
>> "Robust mutexes do not take ROBUST_LIST_LIMIT into account"
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19089
>
> "The kernel limits the length of the robust mutex list to 2048 entries.
> This constant does not seem to be exported to user space."
>
> FWIW, the constant is defined in the UAPI futex header.
>
> The main concern here is not the actual number of futexes held by a task.
>
> The real issue is that the robust list could be circular by incident or
> malice and there is no way for the kernel to figure that out. That would
> prevent the task from exiting and make it iterate over the list until
> doomsday, i.e. a nice unpriviledged DoS.
>
> So I fear the kernel cannot really help with this one.
I'm actually fine with treating ROBUST_LIST_LIMIT as an ABI constant.
It's just not clear to me if the constant has this status today. I
suspect it was just split from the implementation headers at one point.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists