[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911051053470.17054@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:59:24 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
cc: Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] futex: extend set_robust_list to allow 2 locking
ABIs at the same time.
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Shawn Landden:
> > If this new ABI is used, then bit 1 of the *next pointer of the
> > user-space robust_list indicates that the futex_offset2 value should
> > be used in place of the existing futex_offset.
>
> The futex interface currently has some races which can only be fixed by
> API changes. I'm concerned that we sacrifice the last bit for some
> rather obscure feature. What if we need that bit for fixing the
> correctness issues?
That current approach is going nowhere and if we change the ABI ever then
this needs to happen with all *libc folks involved and agreeing.
Out of curiosity, what's the race issue vs. robust list which you are
trying to solve?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists