lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: sys_futex() && timespec_valid()
* Darren Hart (dvhltc@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 12:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>
> Hi Oleg,
>
>> Another stupid question about the trivial problem I am going to ask,
>> just to report the authoritative answer back to bugzilla. The problem
>> is, personally I am not sure we should/can add the user-visible change
>> required by glibc maintainers, and I am in no position to suggest them
>> to fix the user-space code instead.
>>
>> In short, glibc developers believe that sys_futex(ts) is buggy and
>> needs the fix to return -ETIMEDOUT instead of -EINVAL in case when
>> ts->tv_sec< 0 and the timeout is absolute.
>>
>
> Just a question of semantics I guess. Seems reasonable to me to call a
> negative timeout invalid. However, I certainly don't feel strongly
> enough about it to fight for it. Glibc is the principle user of
> sys_futex(). While there are certainly other users out there (Mathieu
> Desnoyers' Userspace RCU comes to mind), I doubt any of them depend on
> -EINVAL for negative timeouts to function properly.

Userspace RCU does not use futex timeouts (the parameter is always NULL). So
this change/fix won't have any effect as far as urcu is concerned.

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> Unless there is some good reason to object to breaking the API that I am
> missing, I don't mind changing it to -ETIMEDOUT (although -EINVAL seems
> more intuitive to me).
>
> --
> Darren "Little Fish" Hart
>
>> Ignoring the possible cleanups/microoptimizations, something like this:
>>
>> --- x/kernel/futex.c
>> +++ x/kernel/futex.c
>> @@ -2625,6 +2625,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(futex, u32 __user *, uad
>> cmd == FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI)) {
>> if (copy_from_user(&ts, utime, sizeof(ts)) != 0)
>> return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + // absolute timeout
>> + if (cmd != FUTEX_WAIT) {
>> + if (ts->tv_nsec>= NSEC_PER_SEC)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (ts->tv_sec< 0)
>> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
>> + }
>> +
>> +
>> if (!timespec_valid(&ts))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Otherwise, pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock(ts) hangs spinning in user-space
>> forever if ts->tv_sec< 0.
>>
>> To clarify: this depends on libc version and arch.
>>
>> This happens because pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock(rwlock, ts) on x86_64
>> roughly does:
>>
>> for (;;) {
>> if (fast_path_succeeds(rwlock))
>> return 0;
>>
>> if (ts->tv_nsec>= NSEC_PER_SEC)
>> return EINVAL;
>>
>> errcode = sys_futex(FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET_PRIVATE, ts);
>> if (errcode == ETIMEDOUT)
>> return ETIMEDOUT;
>> }
>>
>> and since the kernel return EINVAL due to !timespec_valid(ts), the
>> code above loops forever.
>>
>> (btw, we have same problem with EFAULT, and this is considered as
>> a caller's problem).
>>
>> IOW, pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock() assumes that in this case
>> sys_futex() can return nothing interesting except 0 or ETIMEDOUT.
>> I guess pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock() is not alone, but I didn't check.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the question: do you think we can change sys_futex() to make
>> glibc happy?
>>
>> Or, do you think it is user-space who should check tv_sec< 0 if
>> it wants ETIMEDOUT with the negative timeout ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
>
>
> --
> Darren Hart
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> Real-Time Linux Team

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-25 21:59    [W:0.480 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site