[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#36609: 27.0.50; Possible race-condition in threading implementation

From: Pip Cet
Subject: bug#36609: 27.0.50; Possible race-condition in threading implementation
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:06:29 +0000

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 3:06 PM Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: Pip Cet <address@hidden>
> > Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:51:48 +0000
> > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> >
> > > If this is not the main thread, then the error handlers should be set
> > > so as to log the error in last_thread_error, and then terminate the
> > > thread (via exiting the thread function, AFAIR).
> >
> > Indeed, that's what happens; but the thread now fails to release the
> > GLib lock it had previously acquired, so other threads cannot acquire
> > it again, ever.
> Then we should make sure we release it when the thread function exits,

That's too late, it's legitimate for the thread to have a signal
handler. We need to release the lock at precisely the time that
unbind_to would release it.

> or before we call Fsignal from post_acquire_global_lock.  There's no
> reason to use the unwind-protect machinery for that, I think.

If we call Fsignal, surely the unwind-protect machinery is already set
up and we can safely call it? So unbind_to would work again...

I guess I've changed my mind: the unwind-protect machinery does
precisely what we want, we should simply document that thread_select
can exit nonlocally and that the select functions need to be written
to cater to that.

Two places call xg_select, and they both run long after unbind_to works.

Doing this without the unwind-protect machinery is difficult: for
example, a comment in post_acquire_global_lock claims
unbind_for_thread_switch can exit nonlocally, though I don't think
that actually happens or we would have seen the bug report.

What's your proposal for doing this?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]