This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH][BZ 13690] Do not violate mutex destruction requirements.
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:18:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][BZ 13690] Do not violate mutex destruction requirements.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1436905273 dot 19451 dot 14 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:21:13PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> POSIX and C++11 require that a thread can destroy a mutex if no thread
> owns the mutex, is blocked on the mutex, or will try to acquire it in
> the future. After destroying the mutex, it can reuse or unmap the
> underlying memory. Thus, we must not access a mutex' memory after
> releasing it. Currently, we can load the private flag after releasing
> the mutex, which is fixed by this patch.
>
> See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13690 for more
> background.
>
> We need to call futex_wake on the lock after releasing it, however.
> This is by design, and can lead to spurious wake-ups on unrelated futex
> words (e.g., when the mutex memory is reused for another mutex). This
> behavior is documented in the glibc-internal futex API and in recent
> drafts of the Linux kernel's futex documentation (see the draft_futex
> branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git).
>
> Carlos, do you want to consider this for 2.22, or should this rather
> target 2.23? The actual change is simple.
>
> Not tested. Could someone test this on a non-x86-linux machine (I don't
> have one handy). Dave, could you test on sparc, please?
>
>
> 2015-07-14 Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
>
> [BZ #13690]
> * sysdeps/nptl/lowlevellock.h (__lll_unlock): Do not access the lock
> after releasing it.
> (__lll_robust_unlock): Likewise.
> * nptl/pthread_mutex_unlock.c (__pthread_mutex_unlock_full): Likewise.
> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/lowlevellock.h (lll_unlock): Likewise.
> (lll_robust_unlock): Likewise.
>
So this is equivalent of my patch from 2013 where you said that you need
to ask posix with fixed bitrot?