[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:06:14 +0000
From: julien.voisin@...tri.org
To: "Rich Felker" <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Protect pthreads' mutexes against use-after-destroy
> Draft attached in case anyone wants to play with it. This could
> probably be something we could consider to adopt.
Couldn't a macro like `#define mutex_is_destroyed (!(m->_m_type & 8) && (m->_m_lock == 0x3fffffff)` be
used instead? Or at least named constants instead of `8` and `0x3fffffff`.
Also, the code-style seems inconsistent:
```
+ if (own == 0x3fffffff) {
+ /* Catch use-after-destroy */
+ if (!(type & 8)) a_crash();
+ return ENOTRECOVERABLE;
+ }
```
vs
```
+ /* Catch use-after-destroy */
+ if (own == 0x3fffffff && !(type & 8)) a_crash();
return EPERM;
```
Both are the same check, yet only one has both conditions in a single `if`.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
