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;
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:56:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
cc:     Shawn Landden <shawn@git.icu>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] futex: extend set_robust_list to allow 2 locking
 ABIs at the same time.
In-Reply-To: <87sgn2skm6.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911051253430.17054@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20191104002909.25783-1-shawn@git.icu> <87woceslfs.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911051053470.17054@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <87sgn2skm6.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

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner:
> > 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?
> 
> Sadly I'm not trying to solve them.  Here's one of the issues:
> 
>   <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14485>

That one seems more a life time problem, i.e. the mutex is destroyed,
memory freed and map address reused while another thread was not yet out of
the mutex_unlock() call. Nasty.

Thanks,

	tglx