Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
when manipulating the robust list, the order of stores matters,
because the code may be asynchronously interrupted by a fatal signal
and the kernel will then access the robust list in what is essentially
an async-signal context.
previously, aliasing considerations made it seem unlikely that a
compiler could reorder the stores, but proving that they could not be
reordered incorrectly would have been extremely difficult. instead
I've opted to make all the pointers used as part of the robust list,
including those in the robust list head and in the individual mutexes,
volatile.
in addition, the format of the robust list has been changed to point
back to the head at the end, rather than ending with a null pointer.
this is to match the documented kernel robust list ABI. the null
pointer, which was previously used, only worked because faults during
access terminate the robust list processing.
|
|
the kernel always uses non-private wake when walking the robust list
when a thread or process exits, so it's not able to wake waiters
listening with the private futex flag. this problem is solved by doing
the equivalent in userspace as the last step of pthread_exit.
care is taken to remove mutexes from the robust list before unlocking
them so that the kernel will not attempt to access them again,
possibly after another thread locks them. this removal code can treat
the list as singly-linked, since no further code which would add or
remove items is able to run at this point. moreover, the pending
pointer is not needed since the mutexes being unlocked are all
process-local; in the case of asynchronous process termination, they
all cease to exist.
since a process-local robust mutex cannot come into existence without
a call to pthread_mutexattr_setrobust in the same process, the code
for userspace robust list processing is put in that source file, and
a weak alias to a dummy function is used to avoid pulling in this
bloat as part of pthread_exit in static-linked programs.
|
|
this change is to get the right tags for C++ ABI matching. it should
have no other effects.
|
|
some of this code should be cleaned up, e.g. using macros for some of
the bit flags, masks, etc. nonetheless, the code is believed to be
working and correct at this point.
|