Ah, you guys mustn't be up-to-date on your Robert Forward reading! GR doesn't care if mass is positive or negative to be mathematically consistent. Negative mass does, however, violate energy conditions as I think Acut pointed out. But these principles aren't necessary for GR. So it has driven some scientists to actually work out just how negative mass would behave.
It was Forward who pointed out some of the most bizarre characteristics of negative mass. Like Freespader said, if you pushed on negative mass, it would push back! It would also be gravitationally attracted to positive mass...but positive mass would be repelled from negative mass! So if you took a ball and negative mass and a ball of positive mass and attached them with a rod...they would whiz off toward the positive mass ball. This wouldn't even violate conservation of momentum, because the negative mass would have negative momentum. Ugh, makes the brain hurt!
Forward proposed (not seriously, but just as a consequence of the above logic) a spaceship drive using such a system. It could achieve arbitrarily large accelerations. BUT, it still wouldn't move faster than the speed of light. The whole point of Forward's analysis was to stay consistent with GR since it is GR that "allows" negative mass in the first place.
Negative mass, or at least negative energy (which would be equivalent) would be needed for a traversable wormhole. To hold open the throat of the wormhole you would need "stuff" surrounding it that would counteract the incredible forces trying to close it back up. Since the throat would want to collapse and thus pull on a 'ring' of negative mass, the negative mass would respond by trying to open the throat further. If you could tune the thing, you would have a stable, traversable wormhole.
Wacky. And most likely entirely hypothetical. But fun to think about!