On Thu, Feb 16, 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Johannes Stezenbach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Anyway: If a process can trash its robust futext list and then die
> > with a segfault, why are the futexes still robust? In this case the
> > kernel has no way to wake up waiters with FUTEX_OWNER_DEAD, or does
> > it?
>
> that's memory corruption - which robust futexes do not (and cannot)
> solve. Robustness is mostly about handling sudden death (e.g. which is
> due to oom, or is due to a user killing the task, or due to the
> application crashing in some non-memory-corrupting way), but it cannot
> handle all possible failure modes.
Hm, OK, from reading this and the other threads on this
topic I get:
- there is a tradeoff between speed and robustness
- the focus for "robust futexes" is on speed
(else they wouldn't deserve to be called futexes)
- thus it is acceptable if they are just 99% robust
That's OK, but IMHO it wouldn't hurt to clearly spell
it out in the documentation.
However, this leaves the question: Is there a slower, but 100% robust
alternative on Linux for applications which need it?
Johannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
