From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 371CF3F20FD for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 20:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773692867; cv=none; b=VgJTFRe3L4FXGa3JigKY+dumlC1qBIRv4zDKTs6DucnYRmGH8dJP84blbcEXbaln2bT2NkgYvxfJ1vJod/+BaxOUqP51jNLdnqgmdFe7+xvUIe903e8bc1+RxlSCHo14jHmZLjHAWdF9vBA6F4dvDy38ngQqw91MNlLAdo8CPYU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773692867; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2ZotQyelJq1RB8RXKS1egumxsz+Ys+KSltcuJy0PKGA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FE+XP4x8hepkr+kQoH/F+JeU4HC/I1PFcPfwg6+DNCx4P8mBJlaXnOm6b/z++Y8Sk3aaDJCes3UbUZd2n+7PNKG/T5I2bjtKi33BOsNq744YP9tfjzLpIKjyzJUYNz/zlw7T1eVOn4dw0t9Tg8EjVY3RIpt6GYqXNBbPthMIOAg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZyIJ3Qx8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZyIJ3Qx8" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FEE2C2BC9E; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 20:27:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773692867; bh=2ZotQyelJq1RB8RXKS1egumxsz+Ys+KSltcuJy0PKGA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ZyIJ3Qx8t5YwVDzlcFhpYNQ2oLuL9TnOfTFiAXyJI/EabBfDdug90+cJCum83JDgH TI43lJPt4kIQy6akuZWVq+fNYrq7XG+tVegWMifJOdNF58mJw5Oech4Kj8xUshJPBo ecbTlFgg49GpPe+PKkiCTqX+pMjU0KQ+MyAahQg4QtCDfxyxHHoaa1kAAZZZtGMFzD oo1th8ODHsJfsz3UIa8DjsBo5mXOen6W8d8szVAXk8N+y5rGHjnSnucyJNHKse6swK McjdWVzaZfxA0c6IRHci/t4zxhn4n778gGThngERGgY8eX+/HfZ9TRbMrHpGL4CfDi My9nmqQSDE37g== From: Thomas Gleixner To: Mathieu Desnoyers , =?utf-8?Q?Andr?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9?= Almeida Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carlos O'Donell , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Peter Zijlstra , Florian Weimer , Rich Felker , Torvald Riegel , Darren Hart , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , "Liam R . Howlett" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] futex: Introduce __vdso_robust_futex_unlock In-Reply-To: References: <20260311185409.1988269-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <87eclopu0j.ffs@tglx> <874imfpukd.ffs@tglx> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 21:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <871phjplj4.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Mar 16 2026 at 15:36, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2026-03-16 13:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> sys_exit() is different because there a task voluntarily exits and if >> it does so between the unlock and the clearing of the op pointer, >> then so be it. That'd be wilfull ignorance or malice and not any >> different from the task doing the corruption itself in user space >> right away. > > I'm not sure about this one. How about the two following scenario: > A concurrent thread calls sys_exit concurrently with the vdso. Is this > something we should handle or consider it "wilfull ignorance/malice" ? I don't understand your question. What has the exit to do with the VDSO?