Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:15:53 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> > That would indeed be a bad thing, as it could potentially lead to
> > use-after-free bugs.  Though one could argue that any code that resulted
> > in use-after-free would be quite aggressive.  But still...
> 
> And once again, note that the normal mutex is already unsafe (unless I missed
> something).

Is it unsafe?

This thread was started because of a bug we triggered in -rt, which
ended up being a change specific to -rt that modified the way slub
handled SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. What else was wrong with it?

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/