lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> "Robustness" is about dealing with crashes while holding a lock: if a
> process exits prematurely while holding a pthread_mutex_t lock that is
> also shared with some other process (e.g. yum segfaults while holding a
> pthread_mutex_t, or yum is kill -9-ed), then waiters for that lock need
> to be notified that the last owner of the lock exited in some irregular
> way.
...
> At the heart of this new approach there is a per-thread private list of
> robust locks that userspace is holding (maintained by glibc) - which
> userspace list is registered with the kernel via a new syscall [this
> registration happens at most once per thread lifetime]. At do_exit()
> time, the kernel checks this user-space list: are there any robust futex
> locks to be cleaned up?
...
> i've tested the new syscalls on x86 and x86_64, and have made sure the
> parsing of the userspace list is robust [ ;-) ] even if the list is
> deliberately corrupted.

I've no knowledge about all this, and maybe I didn't get your
description, so forgive me if I'm talking garbage.

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?


Johannes
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-16 16:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site