lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Change in functionality of futex() system call.
From
Date
Le mardi 07 juin 2011 à 10:44 -0400, Andy Lutomirski a écrit :
> On 06/06/2011 11:13 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/06/2011 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 10:53 -0700, Darren Hart a écrit :
> >>>
> >>
> >>> If I understand the problem correctly, RO private mapping really doesn't
> >>> make any sense and we should probably explicitly not support it, while
> >>> special casing the RO shared mapping in support of David's scenario.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We supported them in 2.6.18 kernels, apparently. This might sounds
> >> stupid but who knows ?
> >
> >
> > I guess this is actually the key point we need to agree on to provide a
> > solution. This particular case "worked" in 2.6.18 kernels, but that
> > doesn't necessarily mean it was supported, or even intentional.
> >
> > It sounds to me that we agree that we should support RO shared mappings.
> > The question remains about whether we should introduce deliberate
> > support of RO private mappings, and if so, if the forced COW approach is
> > appropriate or not.
> >
>
> I disagree.
>
> FUTEX_WAIT has side-effects. Specifically, it eats one wakeup sent by
> FUTEX_WAKE. So if something uses futexes on a file mapping, then a
> process with only read access could (if the semantics were changed) DoS
> the other processes by spawning a bunch of threads and FUTEX_WAITing
> from each of them.
>
> If there were a FUTEX_WAIT_NOCONSUME that did not consume a wakeup and
> worked on RO mappings, I would drop my objection.

If a group of cooperating processes uses a memory segment to exchange
critical information, do you really think this memory segment will be
readable by other unrelated processes on the machine ?

How is this related to futex code ?

Same problem for legacy IPC (shm, msg, sem) : Appropriate protections
are needed, obviously.

BTW, kernel/futex.c uses a global hash table (futex_queues[256]) and a
very predictable hash_futex(), so its easy to slow down futex users...



--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-07 18:01    [W:0.119 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site