linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 02/14] futex: Extend the FUTEX2 flags

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:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:11:27 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, axboe@...nel.dk
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, dvhart@...radead.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        andrealmeid@...lia.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        urezki@...il.com, hch@...radead.org, lstoakes@...il.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        malteskarupke@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/14] futex: Extend the FUTEX2 flags

On Fri, Jul 21 2023 at 12:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +#define FUTEX2_8		0x00
> +#define FUTEX2_16		0x01
>  #define FUTEX2_32		0x02
> -			/*	0x04 */
> +#define FUTEX2_64		0x03
> +#define FUTEX2_NUMA		0x04
>  			/*	0x08 */
>  			/*	0x10 */
>  			/*	0x20 */
> --- a/kernel/futex/syscalls.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/syscalls.c
> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(futex, u32 __user *, uad
>  	return do_futex(uaddr, op, val, tp, uaddr2, (unsigned long)utime, val3);
>  }
>  
> -#define FUTEX2_MASK (FUTEX2_32 | FUTEX2_PRIVATE)
> +#define FUTEX2_MASK (FUTEX2_64 | FUTEX2_PRIVATE)
>  
>  /**
>   * futex_parse_waitv - Parse a waitv array from userspace
> @@ -207,7 +207,12 @@ static int futex_parse_waitv(struct fute
>  		if ((aux.flags & ~FUTEX2_MASK) || aux.__reserved)
>  			return -EINVAL;

With the above aux.flags with FUTEX2_32 set will result in -EINVAL. I
don't think that's intentional.

Thanks,

        tglx