Re: futex question

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 13:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Stared at the same place a minute ago :) But still I wonder if it's 
> > a good idea to silently release locks and set the state to OWNERDEAD 
> > instead of hitting the app programmer with a big clue stick in case 
> > the app holds locks when calling execve().
> 
> Agreed, I rather like the feedback. With regular exit like things 
> there's just not much we can do to avoid the mess, but here we can 
> actually avoid it, seems a waste not to do so.

Well, exec() has been a 'exit() + boot-strap next process' kind of thing 
from the get go - with little state carried over into the new task. This 
has security and robustness reasons as well.

So i think exec() should release all existing state, unless told 
otherwise. Making it behave differently for robust futexes sounds 
assymetric to me.

It might make sense though - a 'prevent exec because you are holding 
locks!' thing. Dunno.

Cc:-ed a few execve() semantics experts who might want to chime in.

If a (buggy) app calls execve() with a (robust) futex still held should 
we auto-force-release robust locks held, or fail the exec with an error 
code? I think the forced release is a 'anomalous exit' thing mostly, 
while calling exec() is not anomalous at all.

	Ingo