Message-ID: <3FA7E8F7.7060304@colorfullife.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:59:19 +0100
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John M Collins <jmc@xisl.com>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Semaphores and threads anomaly and bug?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1522
Lines: 40

John wrote:

>I know this isn't defined anywhere but the seems to be an ambiguity and 
>discrepancy between versions of Unix and Linux over threads and semaphores.
>
>Do the "SEM_UNDO"s get applied when a thread terminates or when the 
>"whole thing" terminates?
>  
>
According to the Unix spec: per-process.
Older Linux kernels applied it per-thread. Newer kernels can handle it 
per-process, and AFAIK it's the default for NPTL.

>I think that in ipc/sem.c line 1062 the line should be made 
>conditional on "u->semadj[i]" being non-zero.
>  
>
Fixed in 2.6. But there is another bug in that block: undos can increase 
the semaphore value above SEMVMX.

>There is a potential problem here in that the code in ipc/sem.c doesn't 
>allow the adjustment to yield a negative value but what if it starts at 
>zero, thread A increments it, thread B decrements it back to zero (both 
>with SEM_UNDO) and thread A exits first? Thread A's undo won't work and 
>then thread B's undo will increment it again leaving it in an incorrect 
>state which is different from thread B exiting first.
>  
>
Correct. undo operations should never try to decrease the semaphore 
value - an attempt to decrease below 0 is either silently ignored, or 
the semaphore value is set to 0.

--
    Manfred

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/