This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] nptl: Fix racy pipe closing in tst-cancel{20,21}


If noone opposes I will commit this shortly.

On 09-11-2015 10:21, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Thanks for checking this out.  Anyone more have any more comments on that?
> 
> On 29-10-2015 17:59, Paul E. Murphy wrote:
>> This looks ok to me. Failing with a timeout seems better than
>> incorrectly reporting a pass. Though, a 40 second timeout seems
>> a bit high to me.
>>
>> Tested on ppc64.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 10/29/2015 12:28 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>> On 19-10-2015 17:01, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>> Ping.
>>>>
>>>> On 14-10-2015 16:58, Rich Felker wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:03:15PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>>>> The tst-cancel20 open two pipes and creates a thread which blocks
>>>>>> reading the first pipe.  It then issues a signal to activate an
>>>>>> handler which also blocks reading the second pipe.  Finally the
>>>>>> cancellation cleanup-up handlers are tested by first closing the
>>>>>> all the pipe ends and issuing a pthread_cancel. The tst-cancel21 
>>>>>> have a similar behavior, but use an extra fork after the test itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The race condition occurs if the cancellation handling acts after the
>>>>>> pipe close: in this case read will return EOF (indicating side-effects)
>>>>>> and thus the cancellation must not act.  However current GLIBC
>>>>>> cancellation behavior acts regardless the syscalls returns with
>>>>>> sid-effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adjust the test by moving the pipe closing after the
>>>>>> cancellation handling.  This avoid spurious cancellation for the
>>>>>> case described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Checked on x86_64 and i386.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was involved in the discussion of this and believe that the fix is
>>>>> correct. The only reason the tests "worked" before was that
>>>>> cancellation was wrongly being acted upon after read succeeded in
>>>>> reading EOF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that, with this change, the tests will now timeout if read fails
>>>>> to act on cancellation, rather than exiting with a reportable error.
>>>>> This could be fixed with some very complicated machinery involving an
>>>>> additional signal handler and AS-safe synchronization mechanisms to
>>>>> control the ordering of close with respect to interruption of read,
>>>>> but as long as timeout is an acceptable way of detecting test failure,
>>>>> I see no reason to complicate the test logic like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>
>>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]