> On Feb 4, 2019, at 6:36 PM, SODA Noriyuki <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:35 -0800, Jason Thorpe <[email protected]> said: > > The reason why the SUS definition is so nasty is that it implicitly > assumes pshared semaphore (and pshared mutex) will be implemented > on top of shared memory. And the security problem won't happen > in that case (because random processes cannot share same memory). > > How about using such implementation? Although it requires symbol > versioning due to the sem_t size change..
I’m currently mulling over another implementation that would not require changing the sem_t ABI. -- thorpej
