| To: | David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: futex_wake_op deadlock? |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:00:41 +0000 |
| Cc: | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@zeugmasystems.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <4743279B.7070402@avtrex.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20071119184837.GA12287@linux-mips.org> <DDFD17CC94A9BD49A82147DDF7D545C54DCDE2@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> <20071120112051.GB30675@linux-mips.org> <4743279B.7070402@avtrex.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0800, David Daney wrote: >> Notice the branch at the end of the fixup code, it goes back to the >> SC instruction. The SC instruction took an exception so it will not have >> changed $1 so the loop will continue endless unless by coincidence the >> value to be stored from $1 happened to be zero. >> >> Obviously this one was MIPS specific and may hit all supported ABIs. So >> my initial suspicion this might be the issue David Miller recently >> discovered in the binary compat code isn't true. And it's a local DoS >> probably for all of 2.6.16 and up. >> > > I mostly similar code is in 2.6.15, so I think it is effected as well. > 2.6.12 on the other hand doesn't seem to have futex.h It originally appeared in the lmo kernel for 2.6.14-rc1 and a little after the 2.6.14 release in kernel.org. If I say 2.6.16 then it's simply that I don't ever look at anything that doesn't have a -stable branch. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: futex_wake_op deadlock?, David Daney |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: how to use memory before kernel load address?, zhuzhenhua |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: futex_wake_op deadlock?, David Daney |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH, REPOST] Fix/Rewrite of the mipsnet driver, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |