From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 8 17:30:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D83D106566C for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:30:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5682F8FC12 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q38HUIiI024258 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:30:18 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q38HUIus024255; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:30:18 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:30:18 GMT Message-Id: <201204081730.q38HUIus024255@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Jilles Tjoelker Cc: Subject: Re: kern/166706: [libc] sem_open(3) incorrectly returns the already opened named semaphore handle when O_EXCL is used [regression] X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jilles Tjoelker List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:30:18 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/166706; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jilles Tjoelker To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, davidxu@freebsd.org Cc: igaztanaga@gmail.com Subject: Re: kern/166706: [libc] sem_open(3) incorrectly returns the already opened named semaphore handle when O_EXCL is used [regression] Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 19:26:39 +0200 > [sem_new.c may return success with O_CREAT|O_EXCL if the semaphore > already exists] The code in sem_new.c will happily add another reference to an already open semaphore, even if O_CREAT|O_EXCL were specified. The below patch fixes this by adding an extra check. It makes the submitter's test program pass again on head. What do you think? Index: lib/libc/gen/sem_new.c =================================================================== --- lib/libc/gen/sem_new.c (revision 233702) +++ lib/libc/gen/sem_new.c (working copy) @@ -162,10 +162,16 @@ _pthread_mutex_lock(&sem_llock); LIST_FOREACH(ni, &sem_list, next) { if (strcmp(name, ni->name) == 0) { - ni->open_count++; - sem = ni->sem; - _pthread_mutex_unlock(&sem_llock); - return (sem); + if ((flags & (O_CREAT|O_EXCL)) == (O_CREAT|O_EXCL)) { + _pthread_mutex_unlock(&sem_llock); + errno = EEXIST; + return (SEM_FAILED); + } else { + ni->open_count++; + sem = ni->sem; + _pthread_mutex_unlock(&sem_llock); + return (sem); + } } } -- Jilles Tjoelker