Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] futex: how to solve the robust_list race condition?

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

On 2026-02-23 06:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> Trying to find a backward compatible way to solve this may be tricky.
>> Here is one possible approach I have in mind: Introduce a new syscall,
>> e.g. sys_cleanup_robust_list(void *addr)
>>
>> This system call would be invoked on pthread_mutex_destroy(3) of
>> robust mutexes, and do the following:
>>
>> - Calculate the offset of @addr within its mapping,
>> - Iterate on all processes which map the backing store which contain
>>    the lock address @addr.
>>    - Iterate on each thread sibling within each of those processes,
>>      - If the thread has a robust list, and its list_op_pending points
>>        to the same offset within the backing store mapping, clear the
>>        list_op_pending pointer.
>>
>> The overhead would be added specifically to pthread_mutex_destroy(3),
>> and only for robust mutexes.
> 
> Would we have to do this for pthread_mutex_destroy only, or also for
> pthread_join?  It is defined to exit a thread with mutexes still locked,
> and the pthread_join call could mean that the application can determine
> by its own logic that the backing store can be deallocated.
Let me try to wrap my head around this scenario.

AFAIU, the https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_join.3.html
NOTES section states the following for pthread_join(3):

        After a successful call to pthread_join(), the caller is
        guaranteed that the target thread has terminated.  The caller may
        then choose to do any clean-up that is required after termination
        of the thread (e.g., freeing memory or other resources that were
        allocated to the target thread).

What is the behavior when a thread exits with a mutex locked ? I would
expect that this mutex stays locked and the pthread_join(3) caller gets
to release that mutex and eventually calls pthread_mutex_destroy(3) if
the application logic allows it.

But it looks like you are implying that the pthread_mutex_destroy(3) is
somehow implicit to pthread_join, and I really don't understand that
part. Am I missing something ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com