From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-76020-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 65099 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2016 22:13:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 65083 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2016 22:13:40 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1482, died
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Message-ID: <1481926413.14990.628.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][BZ #20973] Robust mutexes: Fix lost wake-up.
From: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, vl@samba.org,
        Michael Adam
	 <madam@redhat.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:13:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <7415d701-9dab-3c99-2716-2dcd3a4ac731@redhat.com>
References: <1481840825.14990.586.camel@redhat.com>
	 <1481840946.14990.588.camel@redhat.com>
	 <7415d701-9dab-3c99-2716-2dcd3a4ac731@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 15:11 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 11:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > diff --git a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> > index bdfa529..01ac75e 100644
> > --- a/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> > +++ b/nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c
> > @@ -182,6 +182,11 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
> >  		     &mutex->__data.__list.__next);
> >
> >        oldval = mutex->__data.__lock;
> > +      /* This is set to FUTEX_WAITERS iff we might have shared the
> 
> “iff” doesn't seem to be correct here because it's not an exact 
> equivalence, “if” is sufficient.

No, I think the iff is correct.  We do only set it if we may have shared
the flag.

> > @@ -190,9 +195,9 @@ __pthread_mutex_lock_full (pthread_mutex_t *mutex)
> >  	      /* The previous owner died.  Try locking the mutex.  */
> >  	      int newval = id;
> >  #ifdef NO_INCR
> > -	      newval |= FUTEX_WAITERS;
> > +	      newval |= FUTEX_WAITERS | assume_other_futex_waiters;
> >  #else
> > -	      newval |= (oldval & FUTEX_WAITERS);
> > +	      newval |= (oldval & FUTEX_WAITERS) | assume_other_futex_waiters;
> >  #endif
> 
> The NO_INCR change is quite confusing.  Perhaps drop it and add a comment?

Yes.

> VL, what is the copyright status of your test case?

So, I'll wait a little to see how the test case question resolved, and
then commit it with the one change above either with or without a test
case.  If anyone objects to that, please speak up.