From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E0C1DDC1B for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780475753; cv=none; b=RDiYO40xhTZTspYI0+qhAEHI0rBFfxFYvtMQRbZu1xK1W1zRSVCHJCjvJYi3BxdOcbrlXXEKHE7uG4N1mzCArMAwjSe/kk6wydwuAorRGFcxjqq7H4T2GcO7O30YBHqixJ+DTn4+OGysr0jJZK8ByXnIG7QYe89DQt7mGS4lBuo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780475753; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AE1/DwI4lHh+zUBrnrA3i2nUHZUHc+KnaegtfSJyQGc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=joriZl9FT+kofjGuWvh/U5Nukrn+sVixAJsFJVmS0BPITjfzqNAtBdenAPn4CHDv7VTmf7eDhA4JDtvgxLgaASuYDdOXAPTuwqiGlJWTa6J823ZIebt/f72jCjC2B54aEkl02+n4Syp9S5Sm7JWneMJ6XL1kB6RkWv3+5SpdnPc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=Eyewus4j; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="Eyewus4j" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=AE1/DwI4lHh+zUBrnrA3i2nUHZUHc+KnaegtfSJyQGc=; b=Eyewus4jrbNpNQiu01zbDFeaGa mV4REY5Y3r64lfrMVmOaa/6aZ5oldfzd84WW3Mi07MlPLG2PoCftkiq3XpEKgSA/1OAmzY1pHOQF/ UExlP5OD0m4M7A8QM/oXOcadTpDRkN5k7jD1UilouojIlVtD3d71M76TkNqeEa4ijIp98VPEGKmkB J8XuQegG3OP3wJkcJrlaGR9LAZ5qC2ZnelvI0QPo2JM7+V4RR7p3+Hm7i9RNAUBaixjpAlOsjulDr tMjbQV7dLMsuEB30bz4ETDBgt4/2hfwWPMPXmWa0YfJYjk79JwNej6IadhjHkvVXgB7uAMAiKp9l7 1ZsrFtOw==; Received: from 2001-1c00-8d85-4b00-266e-96ff-fe07-7dcc.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl ([2001:1c00:8d85:4b00:266e:96ff:fe07:7dcc] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.99.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wUh4a-0000000Bb54-2Ewm; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:35:37 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 341DA300642; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 10:35:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 10:35:32 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Mathieu Desnoyers , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Almeida , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Carlos O'Donell , Florian Weimer , Rich Felker , Torvald Riegel , Darren Hart , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , "Liam R . Howlett" , Uros Bizjak , Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= , Mark Brown , Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [patch V5 09/16] futex: Add support for unlocking robust futexes Message-ID: <20260603083532.GS3102624@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20260602084648.462672743@kernel.org> <20260602090535.670514505@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260602090535.670514505@kernel.org> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 11:09:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This deliberately omits FUTEX_WAKE_OP from this treatment as it's unclear > whether this is needed and there is no usage of it in glibc either to > investigate. Well, that and because that already consumes uaddr2 its just not doable as-is. > For the futex2 syscall family this needs to be implemented with a new > syscall. Yeah, this would need to be part of futex_lock() / futex_unlock(), which we don't yet have.