Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:20:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       David Singleton <dsingleton@mvista.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1
Message-ID: <20060216172007.GB29151@elte.hu>
References: <20060215151711.GA31569@elte.hu> <20060216145823.GA25759@linuxtv.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060216145823.GA25759@linuxtv.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 831
Lines: 20


* Johannes Stezenbach <js@linuxtv.org> wrote:

> Anyway: If a process can trash its robust futext list and then die 
> with a segfault, why are the futexes still robust? In this case the 
> kernel has no way to wake up waiters with FUTEX_OWNER_DEAD, or does 
> it?

that's memory corruption - which robust futexes do not (and cannot) 
solve. Robustness is mostly about handling sudden death (e.g. which is 
due to oom, or is due to a user killing the task, or due to the 
application crashing in some non-memory-corrupting way), but it cannot 
handle all possible failure modes.

	Ingo
-
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/