[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bd9cb5599cbc4d55b342b1b4cb4b138b9c48a5b.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 13:58:21 +0100
From: Daniele Personal <d.dario76@...il.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, d.dario76@...il.com,
musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: pthread_mutex_t shared between processes with different
pid namespaces
On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 17:03 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Daniele Personal:
>
> > > Is this required for implementing the unlock-if-not-owner error
> > > code
> > > on mutex unlock?
> >
> > No, I don't see problems related to EOWNERDEAD.
>
> Sorry, what I meant is that the TID is needed for efficient reporting
> of
> usage errors. It's not imposed by the robust list protocol as such.
> There could be a PID-namespace-compatible robust mutex type that does
> not have this problem (but with less error checking).
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
Are you saying that there are pthread_mutexes which can be shared
across processes run on different pid namespaces? If yes I'm definitely
interested on this. Can you tell me something more?
What do you mean with "less error checking"? I need for sure to be able
to detect the EOWNERDEAD condition in order to restore consistency but
I'm not interested in recursive locks.
Thanks,
Daniele.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
