lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: sys_futex() && timespec_valid()
B1;2005;0cOleg,

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Hello.
>
> 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.

Oh well. We followed the validity check for all other syscalls which
hand in [absolute] timespecs:

The rqtp argument specified a nanosecond value less than zero or
greater than or equal to 1000 million; or the TIMER_ABSTIME flag was
specified in flags and the rqtp argument is outside the range for the
clock specified by clock_id;

tv->sec < 0 is definitely an invalid value for both CLOCK_REALTIME and
CLOCK_MONOTONIC. And I consider any code assuming that it's sane as
buggy by definition.

I'm strictly against having different definitions of sanity for
different syscalls.

> 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;

Btw, you'd need that ugly check in the compat syscall as well.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.

Ouch. So we have code in libc which makes different assumptions about
the syscall semantics ?

> 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).

Brilliant.
> 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?

Do we really want to add crap to the kernel, just because some
lunatics have interesting assumptions about validation ?

Definitely NOT

> Or, do you think it is user-space who should check tv_sec < 0 if
> it wants ETIMEDOUT with the negative timeout ?

If user space folks consider tv_sec < 0 a value which is sane and
inside the valid range of CLOCK_MONO/REAL then I can't do much more
than shrug.

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-25 22:01    [W:0.063 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site