[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170518123054.cp7fqnclvjjgbtyd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:30:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: commit cfafcd117 "futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use
rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()" causes glibc nptl/tst-robustpi8 failure
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:34:34AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 05/18/2017 10:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > But it does that after building the tst-robustpi8 thing, so I seem to
> > > have all I need here.
> >
> > Great, have fun figuring out what's going on. :-/
>
>
>
> ld-linux-x86-64-2165 [018] .... 290.235869: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2165 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2166
> ld-linux-x86-64-2166 [019] .... 290.436398: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e870: 876 -> 40000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2166 [019] .... 290.436399: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e0c8: 876 -> 40000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2166 [019] .... 290.436400: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634ee38: 80000876 -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2166 [019] .... 290.436401: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2166 prio=120
> ld-linux-x86-64-2164 [019] ...1 290.436546: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f066634e078 = 80000876
>
>
>
>
> ld-linux-x86-64-2183 [026] .... 827.987914: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2183 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2187
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188218: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361690: 88b -> 40000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188219: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361898: 8000088b -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3615c8: 8000088b -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3612d0: 8000088b -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361af0: 8000088b -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188221: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361168: 8000088b -> c0000000
> ld-linux-x86-64-2187 [029] .... 828.188222: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2187 prio=120
> ld-linux-x86-64-2182 [019] ...1 828.188373: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f76dd361000 = 8000088b
>
>
>
> In both cases we fail in FUTEX_LOCK_PI trying to acquire a futex owned
> by a dead task, resulting in the -ESRCH.
>
> Now, pthread_mutex_lock() isn't expecting -ESRCH for robust futexes,
> because for robust we'd expect handle_futex_death() to clear out the
> futex value and set OWNER_DIED, as can be seen above.
>
> The problem is however that the futex address we fail on, doesn't appear
> to have been fixed up, so its either not on the robust list, or the
> robust list got broken.
The robust list walk finishes without issue. So no premature
terminations. The address really isn't on it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists