[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ca5f57982db1867b11ec9eecefc4df2@ispras.ru>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 18:13:59 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mq_notify: fix close/recv race on failure path
On 2023-02-11 17:52, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 05:45:14PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> On 2023-02-10 19:29, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:49:26AM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> >>On 2022-12-14 05:26, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >>>On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:46:13PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> >>>>In case of failure mq_notify closes the socket immediately after
>> >>>>sending a cancellation request to the worker thread that is going to
>> >>>>call or have already called recv on that socket. Even if we don't
>> >>>>consider the kernel behavior when the only descriptor to an
>> >>>>object that
>> >>>>is being used in a system call is closed, if the socket descriptor is
>> >>>>closed before the kernel looks at it, another thread could open a
>> >>>>descriptor with the same value in the meantime, resulting in recv
>> >>>>acting on a wrong object.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Fix the race by moving pthread_cancel call before the barrier wait to
>> >>>>guarantee that the cancellation flag is set before the worker thread
>> >>>>enters recv.
>> >>>>---
>> >>>>Other ways to fix this:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>* Remove the racing close call from mq_notify and surround recv
>> >>>> with pthread_cleanup_push/pop.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>* Make the worker thread joinable initially, join it before closing
>> >>>> the socket on the failure path, and detach it on the happy path.
>> >>>> This would also require disabling cancellation around join/detach
>> >>>> to ensure that mq_notify itself is not cancelled in an inappropriate
>> >>>> state.
>> >>>
>> >>>I'd put this aside for a while because of the pthread barrier
>> >>>involvement I kinda didn't want to deal with. The fix you have sounds
>> >>>like it works, but I think I'd rather pursue one of the other
>> >>>approaches, probably the joinable thread one.
>> >>>
>> >>>At present, the implementation of barriers seems to be buggy (I need
>> >>>to dig back up the post about that), and they're also a really
>> >>>expensive synchronization tool that goes both directions where we
>> >>>really only need one direction (notifying the caller we're done
>> >>>consuming the args). I'd rather switch to a semaphore, which is the
>> >>>lightest and most idiomatic (at least per present-day musl idioms) way
>> >>>to do this.
>> >>>
>> >>This sounds good to me. The same approach can also be used in
>> >>timer_create (assuming it's acceptable to add dependency on
>> >>pthread_cancel to that code).
>> >>
>> >>>Using a joinable thread also lets us ensure we don't leave around
>> >>>threads that are waiting to be scheduled just to exit on failure
>> >>>return. Depending on scheduling attributes, this probably could be
>> >>>bad.
>> >>>
>> >>I also prefer this approach, though mostly for aesthetic reasons (I
>> >>haven't thought about the scheduling behavior). I didn't use it only
>> >>because I felt it's a "logically larger" change than simply moving
>> >>the pthread_barrier_wait call. And I wasn't aware that barriers are
>> >>buggy in musl.
>> >
>> >Finally following up on this. How do the attached commits look?
>> >
>> The first and third patches add calls to sem_wait, pthread_join, and
>> pthread_detach, which are cancellation points in musl, so
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Nice catch -- this is actually a bug. pthread_detach is not permitted
> to be a cancellation point.
>
Indeed. I'd actually tried to check that before I sent the email, but
got confused by the following sentence from "man 7 pthreads"[1]:
"An implementation may also mark other functions not specified in the
standard as cancellation points."
My mistake is that I read this as "if a function is not specified to be
a cancellation point in the standard, an implementation may still mark
it as a cancellation point". But apparently it means that "if a function
is not mentioned in the standard at all, an implementation may still
mark it as a cancellation point".
To anyone wondering, the actual text from POSIX is[2]:
"In addition, a cancellation point may occur when a thread is executing
any function that this standard does not require to be thread-safe but
the implementation documents as being thread-safe. If a thread is
cancelled while executing a non-thread-safe function, the behavior is
undefined.
An implementation shall not introduce cancellation points into any other
functions specified in this volume of POSIX.1-2017."
(And pthread_detach is required to be thread-safe).
[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/pthreads.7.html
[2]
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_09_05_02
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.
