On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 10:44 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
> semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
> and next potential checks are done against the old value.
>
> The failing scenario
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 10:44 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
> semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
> and next potential checks are done against the old value.
>
> The failing scenario
When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
and next potential checks are done against the old value.
The failing scenario is not much practical. One semop call has to do more
operations
When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
and next potential checks are done against the old value.
The failing scenario is not much practical. One semop call has to do more
operations
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 10:44 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
and next potential checks are done against the old value.
The failing scenario is
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 10:44 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
When trying to understand semop code, I found a small mistake in the check for
semadj (undo) value overflow. The new undo value is not stored immediately
and next potential checks are done against the old value.
The failing scenario is
6 matches
Mail list logo
