Received: by 2002:a25:31c3:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x186csp568135ybx; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:01:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwBi/YDkRRkxCoFEl2MGziv9nJCWkw5LJrxIqm47q34uIvlpgKSpG+ArAPEw9PyHavBTUTU X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2078:: with SMTP id qp24mr721667ejb.157.1572948107862; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:01:47 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1572948107; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=c7IBSWCNERejEQVwsKaDlvl8t63wEWct3psOEoyUnTr3QgoIhOKo+8U/HlvzZxOhTO 0B3c7iJeFX3bjQGtgXJan3nlp+Di4D5KM1Ltf15H/Dmv1M+89pXX2Hd4DJ3Ig4YF7ecS kUEtQsIlUfwjYvCljPQG8+ELjGcZZZ2fpo7UAZxaaKYwHIA3HhGLSsQ6N6BtQAvkyrfz ISEmwZrdUwQhvGQOeR+rixkC/55APIGL2ZnkoyhGwrmcgo4k301NX5KICfroUBjtFUwD ysSB3tbd2bS6yqc+WP/F5QKoaRJSK1wmy+iu0PHSe1ks+2PB50x2Xxb//7d7db1ElgCO JNSw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=RqymIKDVqGhkK0YV4bU4wQ1lp2yW12Pk3XsTRxKv5lQ=; b=cC8WOjLMotqOAkWqnEx+qt+7CS1HTM6irALdfIRfwoD9+odp6/Pe57LrJoEDEyaclT Dw7W04RHLmpLjK0c8BOGK+jSu/l+BjEINjhaOo4OaKKQYagCcQkmDfdZzujw/YfxlIYz hZpaGLIK1WAQs2/73z7+d1Cx4dyipgkavr2ODPjUBKzNk/dwGWnzY1736krmRf2NrKZ6 VBDKVUGFDKTk/Vq3VlFZj7V+/4i7bvQgoJdb86E7WyoX/pcmsChxh1CWwumKoz4+ehiH ggn9ADhSkEUmC8Q3l+wdcoNRypkIHdVpaH8/Tef06caAmrylnrn3pkf+opjapid3my3y FXuA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ce11si9945670edb.391.2019.11.05.02.01.18; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388149AbfKEJ7b (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 04:59:31 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:40761 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730454AbfKEJ7b (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 04:59:31 -0500 Received: from [5.158.153.52] (helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iRvcS-0000Cb-W3; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:59:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:59:24 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Florian Weimer cc: Shawn Landden , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Arnd Bergmann , Deepa Dinamani , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Keith Packard , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] futex: extend set_robust_list to allow 2 locking ABIs at the same time. In-Reply-To: <87woceslfs.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20191104002909.25783-1-shawn@git.icu> <87woceslfs.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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