Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:07:41 +0200 | From | Martin Mačok <> | Subject | some possible bugs around (race conditions etc.) |
| |
Hi, we (Kamil Toman <ktoman@email.cz> and me) were studying linux source and trying to make some "audit". We went over 2.4.7 source and in the time of this writing I'm looking at 2.4.9-ac10 to compare if it was changed. This is a list of possible things we have found:
[ definitely - we're kernel newbies so take us easy ;-) ]
lines according to 2.4.9-ac10:
kernel/capability.c: 59-63, 91-93, 203-206: SMP race, possible fix: rwlock
kernel/exit.c: 485: sys_exit doesn't return anything (nor long type) why it isn't void ? 442-447: is this signal handling correct? 501: task INTERRUPTIBLE - possible ineffectivity, couldn't this task be woken up too often (early)?
kernel/fork.c: 586: isn't memcpy() more effective?
kernel/acct.c: SMP race ?: ---------------------------------------------------- CPU1 CPU2
sys_acct(file) { .... if (old_acct)
sys_acct(NULL) sys_acct(nextfile) {
.... do_acct_process() -- BUG! filp_close() -- BUG! ----------------------------------------------------
kernel/sys.c: 1217: mixed signed/unsigned - doesn't it return EINVAL even when it shouldn't? 1042: what if strlen < len? can we get rid of chars after null? 428: why wmb() ?
kernel/sched.c: 1303-1309: isn't there a same race cond. as in kmod.c:65 ? 1323: is this needed on UP? 603: is this correct on SMP? shouldn't there be some penalty accounted for being "randomly" woken/run?
kernel/kmod.c 211: shouldn't module_name be tested a bit?
Comments are welcomed.
Have a nice day
-- Martin Mačok underground.cz openbsd.cz - 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/
|  |