From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752345AbbASKqT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:46:19 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:41668 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751029AbbASKqR (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:46:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:45:48 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Darren Hart cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , "Carlos O'Donell" , Ingo Molnar , Jakub Jelinek , "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Linux API , Torvald Riegel , Roland McGrath , Darren Hart , Anton Blanchard , Petr Baudis , Eric Dumazet , bill o gallmeister , Jan Kiszka , Daniel Wagner , Rich Felker Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com> <5373D0CA.2050204@redhat.com> <54B7D87C.3090901@gmail.com> <54B92B71.2090509@gmail.com> <54B97A72.2050205@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Darren Hart wrote: > On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" > wrote: > > >On 01/16/2015 04:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > >> > >> It is there for both. The requeue code has that check independent of > >> the requeue type (normal/pi). It never makes sense to requeue > >> something to itself whether normal or pi futex. We added this for PI, > >> because there it is harmful, but we did not special case it. So normal > >> futexes get the same treatment. > > > >Hello Thomas, > > > >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that > >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"? > > > >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources > >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument. > > > Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to > the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?). Both > tests ensuring uaddr1 != uaddr2 are under the requeue_pi conditional > block. The second compares the keys in case they are not FUTEX_PRIVATE > (uaddrs would be different, but still the same backing store). > > Thomas, am I missing a test for this someplace else? No, I had a short look at the code misread it. So, yes, it's a valid operation for the non PI case. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, tglx