Re: [patch 0/6] lightweight robust futexes: -V3

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

Another thing I noticed was that futex_offset on the surface looks like
a malicious users dream variable .. I didn't notice security addressed
at all in your initial write up . I was told it was a big topic at last
years OLS ..  In your write up you did say you corrupted the
robust_list , but did you corrupt the offset? Is this even a concern?

Daniel


On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 10:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This is release -V3 of the "lightweight robust futexes" patchset. The 
> patchset can also be downloaded from:
> 
>   http://redhat.com/~mingo/lightweight-robust-futexes/
> 
> Changes since -V2:
> 
> Ulrich Drepper ran the code through more glibc testcases, which 
> unearthed a couple of bugs:
> 
>  - fixed bug in the i386 and x86_64 assembly code (Ulrich Drepper)
> 
>  - fixed bug in the list walking futex-wakeups (found by Ulrich Drepper)
> 
>  - race fix: do not bail out in the list walk when the list_op_pending 
>    pointer cannot be followed by the kernel - another userspace thread 
>    may have already destroyed the mutex (and unmapped it), before this 
>    thread had a chance to clear the field.
> 
>  - cleanup: renamed list_add_pending to list_op_pending. (the field is 
>    used for list removals too)
> 
> 	Ingo
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/