|
Message-ID: <20240121170302.GA4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:03:03 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: julien.voisin@...tri.org Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Protect pthreads' mutexes against use-after-destroy On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:06:14PM +0000, julien.voisin@...tri.org wrote: > > 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`.. Maybe something like that, but that's a change I'd like to make in a consistent uniform way for all of the uses of magic numbers in the mutex implementation. Just introducing it in a single place like this doesn't really help readability; in some ways it makes it less readable since you can't see how it's interacting with the other tests. If doing it, I think it would probably make more sense not to have that predicate macro, but instead something like: if (own == M_UNRECOVERABLE && !(m->_m_type & MT_ROBUST)) because seeing the individual parts is relevant to understanding: > 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`. These are decision trees on what to do in exceptional cases. The aim is not to present a consistent "style" between two functions that do different things and have different decision trees for how to act. Rich
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.