[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302859671.5374.2.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:27:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] futex: set FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT during futex_wait
restart setup
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 10:33 +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> > The FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT flag was not getting set, causing the restart_block to
> > restart futex_wait() without a timeout after a signal.
> >
> > Commit b41277dc7a18ee332d in 2.6.38 introduced the regression by accidentally
> > removing the the FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT assignment from futex_wait() during the setup
> > of the restart block. Restore the originaly behavior.
> >
> > Fixes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32922
> >
> > V2: Added references to commit message.
> > V3: Set flag during restart block instead of do_futex()
> > V4: Correct stupid order of assignment mistake pointed out by Eric
> > V5: Correct subject to match implementation, correct stable submission
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> > Reported-by: Tim Smith <tsmith201104@...oo.com>
> > Reported-by: Torsten Hilbrich <torsten.hilbrich@...unet.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
> > Cc: stable@...nel.org
> > ---
> > kernel/futex.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index bda4157..abd5324 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -1886,7 +1886,7 @@ retry:
> > restart->futex.val = val;
> > restart->futex.time = abs_time->tv64;
> > restart->futex.bitset = bitset;
> > - restart->futex.flags = flags;
> > + restart->futex.flags = flags | FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT;
>
> We only get here when a timeout is pending. So why don't we just do
> the obvious:
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/futex.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1902,16 +1902,13 @@ out:
> static long futex_wait_restart(struct restart_block *restart)
> {
> u32 __user *uaddr = restart->futex.uaddr;
> - ktime_t t, *tp = NULL;
> + ktime_t t;
>
> - if (restart->futex.flags & FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT) {
> - t.tv64 = restart->futex.time;
> - tp = &t;
> - }
> + t.tv64 = restart->futex.time;
> restart->fn = do_no_restart_syscall;
>
> return (long)futex_wait(uaddr, restart->futex.flags,
> - restart->futex.val, tp, restart->futex.bitset);
> + restart->futex.val, &t, restart->futex.bitset);
> }
>
Because its not suitable for stable ?
This is basically reverting a72188d8a64ebe74, so why do you keep
FUTEX_HAS_TIMEOUT definition ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists