Received: by 2002:a25:7ec1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z184csp2382533ybc; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:36:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZIdWaaqXXJ3KxUSTBtH1Ml4k9j13Y0AHedQMHB4/yQRwZ5gEZMkLrB4L+ycdHUmAX+UwF X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4910:: with SMTP id b16mr5018166ejq.133.1573681006775; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:36:46 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1573681006; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=PRzWSP6Fobwjuv+AOK94bFoWuy9aCGCz+g2UegCsXUuSQhfMefBk1K43sGEhXKF/uD 2/8ogB4zLYVr7xpBxHKwucZuxVV26zhZVKRVF41plWW5xl2TGEHmWup+hSw/aDglNxpo cvFCZIX4pVHGtZlePy7dPZf+rGNcjkpjq8buq36Kl+duVMlbfpLfyhQFdPxGlfwPsUqc xXjzsCy2sAJJn6i+9APd9P99bwlzS9bzgXMN8yS7eHhFsY9eDuYxia5FQILBhrImdS8I AhsiMzwcsLWXNc1Ouda2EhcBnVK3Thq9IM+9SIzWmunJeqxLxCDOi3tcmReWUznONBeX 9UwA== 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=6kX3QqFO8J3l6b4+u7LBjwh0hKFOi1YWJZ9kspqt20A=; b=lYnJ6ti/8wl1kwd5ysxoxeP8HY114FB9K2hLtmwWFyIyYfqMlLasBLpsUNt3nBEt+r dHc/d7cu/Rcui6P6nawFZAwlOgWqL9PELbBmmUd1TrhnKBE0D0u9yplOTC8ii77XoDYy aRO6hM3rPwYzw3mPRm20kQSQwF+XNJsJE9X0GkMMvdzAduPbArnvj7B2TbrYTGr46EDa DaDqGwgWlt6RX4s82zacsufRwOZF8go4KS8/qztjLbVFhq/8gRjAZw5CSDZVjRrW0l1b vFRKVqDeRFirQZybW+rsSKuQM0197JZ6qq+oyqgxKkyXAqMhYmhcyg+GcCQTKS7ukalz RkuQ== 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 j3si2409461edh.14.2019.11.13.13.36.21; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:36:46 -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 S1726598AbfKMVe5 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:34:57 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:39119 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726189AbfKMVe5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:34:57 -0500 Received: from p5b06da22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.6.218.34] helo=nanos) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iV0Hr-0006m5-6C; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:34:51 +0100 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:34:50 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Harris, Robert" cc: Ingo Molnar , "peterz@infradead.org" , "dvhart@infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Help requested: futex(..., FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, ...) returns EPERM In-Reply-To: <90781C7F-BF54-4913-8548-2FE815CCAC95@alertlogic.com> Message-ID: References: <90781C7F-BF54-4913-8548-2FE815CCAC95@alertlogic.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Harris, Robert wrote: > > On 13 Nov 2019, at 09:04, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Harris, Robert wrote: > >> Understanding the circumstances under which EPERM can be returned for > >> FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE would be useful but it is not a documented failure > >> mode. I have spent some time looking through futex.c but have not > >> found anything yet. I would be grateful for a hint from someone more > >> knowledgeable. > > > > sys_futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) does not return -EPERM. Only the PI variants > > do that. > > In that case I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. The error I see > (intermittently) is The code looks innocent enough. As I don't know whether the kernel version you mentioned is a vanilla 4.19.184 from the stable tree or some patched up frankenkernel which pretends to have this version number, I can't be sure that this is an issue in that particular kernel. In the vanilla 4.19.184 I really cant find how that would return EPERM for regular futexes. Thanks, tglx