> > Apps using LinuxThreads seem to be candidates:
> >
> > According to POSIX 1003.1c, a successful `exec*' in one of the
> > threads should automatically terminate all other threads in the
> > program. This behavior is not yet implemented in LinuxThreads.
> > Calling `pthread_kill_other_threads_np' before `exec*' achieves
> > much of the same behavior, except that if `exec*' ultimately
> > fails, then all other threads are already killed.
> >
> > steal_locks() was probably added as a workaround for this case, no?
>
> Possibly, but LinuxThreads were never really POSIX thread compliant
> anyway. Anyhow, the problem isn't really LinuxThreads, it is rather that
> the existence of the standalone CLONE_FILES flag allows you to do a lot
> of weird inheritance crap with 'posix locks' that the POSIX standards
> committees never even had to consider.
Yes. The execve-with-multiple-threads/posix-locks interaction is not
documented for LinuxThreads but removing steal_locks() makes that
implementation slighly differently incompatible to POSIX. Some
application _might_ be relying on the current behavior.
It's just a question of how much confidence do we have, that no app
will break if steal_locks() is removed. This function was added by
Chris Wright on 2003-12-29 (Cset 1.1371.111.3):
Add steal_locks helper for use in conjunction with unshare_files to
make sure POSIX file lock semantics aren't broken due to
unshare_files.
Chris, do you remember if this was due to some concrete breakage or
just a preemtive measure?
Miklos
-
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]
