From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:30:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017@10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org
Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:30:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14580dfc-9721-38ab-a1e0-6b4aba13b406@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
> sent a long time ago to fix that up too. But I remember your patch, so I
> sent only this one this time.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Ok, I am all for that. I think the only question is who is going to do
> the work and submit it :)? Do I understand correctly to eliminate all
> these functions and the path into the kernel? But won't this break API
> -- are there really no users of this interface?
That's the million-dollar question, really. I don't know of any code using
it, and I couldn't find any when I looked (also nothing reported by Debian
Codesearch afaict), but I was hoping linux-arch might have some thoughts
on this too.
For now, I'll queue my arm64 patch before I forget about it again!
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-18 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-15 13:07 [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` [OpenRISC] " Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:07 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` [OpenRISC] " Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-15 13:16 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` [OpenRISC] " Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-17 8:01 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-05-18 17:30 ` [OpenRISC] " Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:30 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` [OpenRISC] " Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 21:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` [OpenRISC] " Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-25 14:28 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` [OpenRISC] " Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-26 6:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-21 11:53 ` [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code and fix UB Jiri Slaby
2017-06-21 11:53 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-21 11:53 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-21 11:53 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-21 11:53 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-21 11:53 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-22 3:53 ` Darren Hart
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-23 7:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-06-26 12:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-26 12:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-26 12:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-26 12:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-26 12:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2017-06-26 12:08 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-26 12:08 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-26 12:08 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-26 12:08 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-26 12:08 ` Will Deacon
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-03 10:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170518173010.GK21359@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jejb@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=jonas@southpole.se \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rkuo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=shorne@gmail.com \
--cc=stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vgupta@synopsys.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.