[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1421456216.27134.2.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:56:56 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Petr Baudis <pasky@...e.cz>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
bill o gallmeister <bgallmeister@...il.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request
On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 21:54 +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 04:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Thomas,
> >>
> >> On 01/15/2015 11:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>>>> [EINVAL] uaddr equal uaddr2. Requeue to same futex.
> >>>>
> >>>> ??? I added this, but does this error not occur only for PI requeues?
> >>>
> >>> It's equally wrong for normal futexes. And its actually the same code
> >>> checking for this for all variants.
> >>
> >> I don't understand "equally wrong" in your reply, I'm sorry. Do you
> >> mean:
> >>
> >> a) This error text should be there for both normal and PI requeues
> >
> > It is there for both. The requeue code has that check independent of
> > the requeue type (normal/pi). It never makes sense to requeue
> > something to itself whether normal or pi futex. We added this for PI,
> > because there it is harmful, but we did not special case it. So normal
> > futexes get the same treatment.
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
>
> When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
Yeah, its not very straightforward, I was also scratching my head. First
we do:
if (requeue_pi) {
/*
* Requeue PI only works on two distinct uaddrs. This
* check is only valid for private futexes. See below.
*/
if (uaddr1 == uaddr2)
return -EINVAL;
Then:
/*
* The check above which compares uaddrs is not sufficient for
* shared futexes. We need to compare the keys:
*/
if (requeue_pi && match_futex(&key1, &key2)) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out_put_keys;
}
I wonder why we're checking for requeue_pi again, when, at least
according to the comments, it should be for shared. I guess it would
make sense depending on the mappings as the keys are the only true way
of determining if both futexes are the same, so perhaps:
if ((requeue_pi || (flags & FLAGS_SHARED)) && match_futex())
That would also align with the retry labels.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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