Hello Thomas, On 01/15/2015 11:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> [EINVAL] uaddr equal uaddr2. Requeue to same futex. >> >> ??? I added this, but does this error not occur only for PI requeues? > > It's equally wrong for normal futexes. And its actually the same code > checking for this for all variants. I don't understand "equally wrong" in your reply, I'm sorry. Do you mean: a) This error text should be there for both normal and PI requeues OR a) This error text should be there for neither normal nor PI requeues >>> [EDEADLOCK] The futex is already locked by the caller or the kernel >>> detected a deadlock scenario in a nested lock chain >> >> Added. > > It's actually EDEADLK Yes, sorry -- I should have said that I already found and fixed that problem. >>> [EOWNERDIED] The owner of the futex died and the kernel made the >>> caller the new owner. The kernel sets the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit in the >>> futex userspace value. Caller is responsible for cleanup >> >> There is no such thing as an EOWNERDIED error. I had a look >> through the kernel source for the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED cases and didn't >> see an obvious error associated with them. Can you clarify? (I think >> the point is that this condition, which is described in >> Documentation/robust-futexes.txt, is not an error as such. However, I'm >> not yet sure of how to describe it in the man page.) >> I will add this point as a FIXME in the new draft man page. > > Oops. My bad. That's not the what the kernel does. The kernel merily > marks it in the futex itself with FUTEX_OWNER_DIED. User space needs > to deal with that and the posix users return EOWNERDEAD (not > EOWNERDIED], so it's not part of the futex call itself. > > We had discussions about returning EOWNERDEAD in that case, but then > glibc with its sophisticated error handling prevented that .... Okay. I'll add a FIXME to the draft page, to see if we get some good text together to describe FUTEX_OWNER_DIED and how it is used. >>> FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI >>> >>> This operation tries to acquire the futex at uaddr. It deals with the >>> situation where the TID value at uaddr is 0, but the FUTEX_HAS_WAITER >>> bit is set. User space cannot handle this race free. >> >> Added. >> >>> The arguments uaddr2, val, timeout and val3 are ignored. >> >> ??? But the code reads: >> >> case FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI: >> return futex_lock_pi(uaddr, flags, 0, timeout, 1); >> >> which momentarily misleads one into thinking that 'timeout' is used. >> And: it's not quite ignored, since in futex_lock_pi() a non-NULL >> 'timeout' is unconditionally dereferenced (meaning you could get >> an EFAULT error for a bad 'timeout' pointer). >> I'm confused.... > > Indeed. That's just wrong. > >> Maybe the above code should be >> >> case FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI: >> return futex_lock_pi(uaddr, flags, 0, NULL, 1); >> ? > > Care to send a patch? Will do. [...] >> ??? I don't believe this can happen. 'val3' is internally set to >> FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY. Can you confirm? > > Right. We dont support that bitset stuff in requeue_pi ATM. Thanks for the confirmation. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
