On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Johannes Stezenbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Anyway: If a process can trash its robust futext list and then die
with a segfault, why are the futexes still robust? In this case the
kernel has no way to wake up waiters with FUTEX_OWNER_DEAD, or does
it?
that's memory corruption - which robust futexes do not (and cannot)
solve. Robustness is mostly about handling sudden death (e.g. which is
due to oom, or is due to a user killing the task, or due to the
application crashing in some non-memory-corrupting way), but it cannot
handle all possible failure modes.
I don't think this is a weakness in Dave or Inaky's versions. Dave
at least maintained the bulk of the information in kernel space. The
uaddr was used for the fast locking in userspace, but not for maintaining
the robustness .
Correct me if I'm wrong Dave.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
