linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/11] futex: fixup futex_wait_setup [fold futex: Move futex_queue() into futex_wait

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250226084029.iGLKxrlv@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:40:29 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/11] futex: fixup futex_wait_setup [fold futex: Move
 futex_queue() into futex_wait_setup()]

On 2025-02-26 09:15:02 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25 2025 at 18:09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 
> > we could also make @task a bool signaling it is either NULL or current.
> 
> I have no idea what this change log is trying to tell me. It gives zero
> information what this patch is about and the subject line is confusing
> at best.

This is meant for PeterZ as this should be folded into one of this
patches on which this series is built upon.
The argument "task" passed to futex_wait_setup() is always current or
NULL. The latter is only used by io_uring. So instead getting a task
passed and assuming it belongs to the current process we could have a
bool and enforce this.
The problem would be if things change later on and the passed task does
not belong to the current process hierarchy and would not share the same
private hash.

> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx

Sebastian