[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <acb857255202b20f6c1a6477a7c85043@ispras.ru>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 22:28:20 +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 21:35, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 09:08:53PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> On 2023-02-11 20:59, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 08:50:15PM +0300, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
>> >>On 2023-02-11 20:13, Markus Wichmann wrote:
>> >>>On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >>>>--- a/src/thread/pthread_detach.c
>> >>>>+++ b/src/thread/pthread_detach.c
>> >>>>@@ -5,8 +5,12 @@ static int __pthread_detach(pthread_t t)
>> >>>> {
>> >>>> /* If the cas fails, detach state is either already-detached
>> >>>> * or exiting/exited, and pthread_join will trap or cleanup. */
>> >>>>- if (a_cas(&t->detach_state, DT_JOINABLE, DT_DETACHED) !=
>> >>>>DT_JOINABLE)
>> >>>>+ if (a_cas(&t->detach_state, DT_JOINABLE, DT_DETACHED) !=
>> >>>>DT_JOINABLE) {
>> >>>>+ int cs;
>> >>>>+ __pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE, &cs);
>> >>>> return __pthread_join(t, 0);
>> >>> ^^^^^^ I think you forgot to rework this.
>> >>>>+ __pthread_setcancelstate(cs, 0);
>> >>>>+ }
>> >>>> return 0;
>> >>>> }
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>I see no other obvious missteps, though.
>> >>>
>> >>Same here, apart from this and misspelled "pthred_detach" in the
>> >>commit message, the patches look good to me.
>> >>
>> >>Regarding the POSIX requirement to run sigev_notify_function in the
>> >>context of a detached thread, while it's possible to observe the
>> >>wrong detachstate for a short while via pthread_getattr_np after
>> >>these patches, I'm not sure there is a standard way to do that. Even
>> >>if it exists, this minor issue may be not worth caring about.
>> >
>> >Would this just be if the notification callback executes before
>> >mq_notify returns in the parent?
>>
>> Yes, it seems so.
>>
>> >I suppose we could have the newly
>> >created thread do the work of making the syscall, handling the error
>> >case, detaching itself on success and and reporting back to the
>> >mq_notify function whether it succeeded or failed via the
>> >semaphore/args structure. Thoughts on that?
>> >
>> Could we just move pthread_detach call to the worker thread to the
>> point after pthread_cleanup_pop?
>
> I thought that sounded dubious, in that it might lead to an attempt to
> join a detached thread, but maybe it's safe to assume recv will never
> return if the mq_notify syscall failed...?
>
Actually, because app signals are not blocked when the worker thread is
created, recv can indeed return early with EINTR. But this looks like
just a bug.
Otherwise, mq_notify already assumes that recv can't return before
SYS_mq_notify (if it did, the syscall would try to register a closed
fd). I haven't tried to prove it (e.g. maybe recv may need to allocate
something before blocking and hence can fail with ENOMEM?), but if it's
true, I don't see how a failed SYS_mq_notify could cause recv to return,
so joining a detached thread should be impossible if we make
pthread_detach follow recv.
Alexey
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.
