On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> > and comparison of the result.
> >
> > Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the needed
> > assembly which is now in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser.
> >
> > Note that s390 removed access_ok check in d12a29703 ("s390/uaccess:
> > remove pointless access_ok() checks") as access_ok there returns true.
> > We introduce it back to the helper for the sake of simplicity (it gets
> > optimized away anyway).
>
> Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN. See my
> patch fixing arm64 here (which I'd forgotten about):
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arch/msg38564.html
>
> But, as stated in the thread above, I think we should go a step further
> and remove FUTEX_OP_{OR,ANDN,XOR,OPARG_SHIFT} altogether. They don't
> appear to be used by userspace, and this whole thing is a total mess.
You wish. The constants are not used, but FUTEX_WAKE_OP _IS_ used by
glibc. They only have one argument it seems:
#define FUTEX_OP_CLEAR_WAKE_IF_GT_ONE ((4 << 24) | 1)
but I'm pretty sure that there is enough (probably horrible) code (think
java) out there using FUTEX_WAKE_OP for whatever (non)sensical reasons in
any available combination.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
