mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	"Rich Felker" <dalias@aerifal.cx>,
	"Florian Weimer" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Uros Bizjak" <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Darren Hart" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	"Torvald Riegel" <triegel@redhat.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-dev@igalia.com, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock()
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 13:22:28 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <798c75ba-615d-48d1-bc04-53bc40bc6503@igalia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <844b56fe-b5d4-42b2-ae8e-ce07980d0f50@efficios.com>

Em 29/05/2026 14:47, Mathieu Desnoyers escreveu:
> On 2026-05-29 12:33, André Almeida wrote:
>> Based on the x86 implementation, implement the vDSO function for 
>> unlocking
>> a robust futex correctly.
>>
>> Commit xxxxxxxxxxxx ("x86/vdso: Implement 
>> __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock()") has
>> the full explanation about why this mechanism is needed.
>>
>> The unlock assembly sequence for arm64 is:
>>
>>     __vdso_futex_robust_list64_try_unlock:
>>     retry:
>>         ldxr    w8, [x0] // Load the value from *futex
>>         cmp    w1, w8   // Compare with TID
>>         b.ne    __vdso_futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_end
>>         stlxr    w9, wzr, [x0] // Try to zero *futex
> 
> So it looks like stlxr can be successful, and the process is killed
> right here. This is not within the start/end critical section, so the
> fixup is missed ? Or am I missing something ?
> 

As me and Mathieu discussed on IRC, this should be the right thing to do 
here:

  - Move the critical section label one instruction above to include 
`cbnz` on it
  - Use the result register as the check for the store success, not the 
zero flag register.

So it will look like this:

	__vdso_futex_robust_list64_try_unlock:
	retry:
		ldxr	w8, [x0] // Load the value from *futex
		cmp	w1, w8   // Compare with TID
		b.ne	__vdso_futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_end
		stlxr	w9, wzr, [x0] // Try to zero *futex
	__vdso_futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_start:
		cbnz	w9, retry
		str	xzr, [x2] // After zeroing *futex, zero *op_pending
	__vdso_futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_end>:

The decision regarding if the pointer should be cleared or not lies on 
checking the result register:

	return (regs->user_regs[9]) ? NULL :
		(void __user *) regs->user_regs.regs[2];

Thanks for the review!

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-01 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-29 16:33 [PATCH v3 0/5] " André Almeida
2026-05-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso: Prepare for robust futex unlock support André Almeida
2026-05-29 17:16   ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-06-01 16:17     ` André Almeida
2026-05-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] arm64: vdso: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock() André Almeida
2026-05-29 17:18   ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-05-29 17:47   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-06-01 16:22     ` André Almeida [this message]
2026-05-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] selftests: futex: Add support for aarch64 in robust_list_critical André Almeida
2026-05-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: vdso32: Bring vdso32-offsets.h back André Almeida
2026-05-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64: vdso32: Implement __vdso_futex_robust_try_unlock() André Almeida
2026-05-29 19:15   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-06-02  8:30   ` Thomas Weißschuh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=798c75ba-615d-48d1-bc04-53bc40bc6503@igalia.com \
    --to=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dalias@aerifal.cx \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=triegel@redhat.com \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®