[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

--- Comment #4 from rfm at gnu dot org 2011-03-16 12:43:39 UTC ---
I just searched this old bug report up, and found that I'd missed seeing (or
forgotten about) the latest response :-(

I've been running with my patch for a couple of years without problems, but
when I tried David's patch out, practically all my gnustep code simply started
crashing on startup ... so there's something wrong there but I haven't had time
to see what it might be.

However, to address points in the last comment ...

> I still have a hard time groking what was intended with the receiver.  It all
> seems very intertwined and I think there is a more straight forward way to
> implement this.  

I can't argue with that ... it *is* complex :-(

> Also, with this patch get_imp fails on class methods.  (get_imp also has the
> nasty effect of installing the dispatch table without calling +initialize and
> the same goes for __objc_responds_to).

Very good point ... it hasn't been an issue for me in practice, but that
clearly is something which needs to be addressed.  However, I'm not sure that's
a new bug ... haven't those functions always bypassed +initialize?  I'd have to
check, but I agree that they really should call +initialize

> I'm not to fond of introducing InitializingList as special type. I think should
> be fine with using the existing hash map tables for this. I don't think we
> really need to introduce a new type.  Do you really think that method dispatch
> for partially installed dispatch tables is performance critical?

Certainly there's no performance issue with method dispatch in initialize ...
it should be rare enough that we can use a really slow implementation. 
However, we have to build the dispatch table for the class, so it seemed
reasonable to use it within the thread calling +initialize even though we don't
want to install it for other threads until +initialize has completed.  Perhaps
we can store the uninstalled dispatch tables in a hash map more simply than
using a new type ... that sounds reasonable.

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[ayers at fsfe dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

--- Comment #5 from David Ayers <ayers at fsfe dot org> 2011-03-16 13:33:07 UTC ---
I haven't looked at my patch for quite some time but I don't remember that
there was an issue and did quite some extensive tests... but anyway it surely
has bit-rotted since. 

If you're approach works and you can address the fact that dispatch tables can
be manipulated before +initialized was invoked on the class, then I'm fine with
whatever you come up with.

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

--- Comment #6 from rfm at gnu dot org 2011-03-17 06:20:42 UTC ---
I spent some hours looking at your code and I like it ... it's certainly
clearer than mine.

I found three problems which i've fixed on my system:
1. failure to check CLS_ISRESOLV early enough (I added a check at the very
start of __objc_install_dtable_for_class,
2. I needed to add a check immediately after installing the dispatch table of
the superclass ... in case the +initialize in the superclass had actually
initialized the subclass too.  In this case we need to return immediately from
__objc_install_dtable_for_class rather than trying to install the table again.
3. The +initialize method of  class can cause changes to the methods of the
class, so the prepared dispatch table can need to be replaced during the
executing of +initialize.  I added changes for that.

I've been working on an old copy of libobjc ... once I can get your patch plus
my modifications workng with svn trunk, I'll post a patch against the current
runtime code.

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[ayers at fsfe dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

--- Comment #7 from David Ayers <ayers at fsfe dot org> 2011-03-17 07:14:27 UTC ---
Thanks a lot for picking it up!

I'll keep an eye out for your version and will take it for a spin when it comes
available.

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

rfm at gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #17020|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #8 from rfm at gnu dot org 2011-03-17 20:21:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 23702
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23702
David's patch with a few more fixes and updated for current svn trunk

Made it safe to modify class methods during +initialize (eg as done by class
clusters adding behaviors in gnustep).
Made it safe for superclass +initialize to use the subclass.
Simplified message lookup so that get_imp and objc_msg_lookup share common
code, reducing the chance of a mistake in this tricky class initialisation
process.

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

rfm at gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #23702|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #9 from rfm at gnu dot org 2011-04-03 04:40:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 23857
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23857
Revised/improved patch against svn trunk

Here's a new version of the patch.

This adds support for the new runtime function class_respondsToSelector()which
was previously not considered as it was added to the runtime after the original
fic for this bug.

This patch also fixes a completely unrelated possible bug that
class_respondsToSelector() and __objc_responds_to() were not necessarily
returning OjC BOOL values (ie could in theory return values other than 0 or 1).

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[nicola at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

Nicola Pero <nicola at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |nicola at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Nicola Pero <nicola at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-25 18:56:19 UTC ---
I applied the patch to trunk.

Thanks a lot! :-)

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.5.0                       |---


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-04-10 12:44:38
               date|                            |
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from ayers at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-10 12:43 -------
Created an attachment (id=17613)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17613&action=view)
rewrite of dispatch table installation

I agree with the approach you describe, in that we need a look-a-side buffer
for the dispatch table to send messages during +initialize and install the
dtable after +initialize returns.

I was not comfortable with the patch because:

/* Assumes that __objc_runtime_mutex is locked down.
 * If receiver is not null, it is the object whos supercalss must be
 * initialised if the superclass of the one we are installing the
 * dispatch table for is not already installed.
 */
__objc_begin_install_dispatch_table_for_class (Class class, Class receiver)

I still have a hard time groking what was intended with the receiver.  It all
seems very intertwined and I think there is a more straight forward way to
implement this.  

Also, with this patch get_imp fails on class methods.  (get_imp also has the
nasty effect of installing the dispatch table without calling +initialize and
the same goes for __objc_responds_to).

I'm not to fond of introducing InitializingList as special type. I think should
be fine with using the existing hash map tables for this. I don't think we
really need to introduce a new type.  Do you really think that method dispatch
for partially installed dispatch tables is performance critical?

Well... after all this complaining, let's get to something more constructive
:-).  I've attached a patch (including some test cases which still need to be
augmented) that I'd like to propose for a reimplementation originally based on
your code.  I hope I've added enough comments and asserts to insure the
assumptions and prerequisites are met.  For the final submission I'll remove
some of the asserts.

It combines __objc_install_dispatch_table_for_class and
__objc_init_install_dtable into:

/* This function is called by:
   objc_msg_lookup, get_imp and __objc_responds_to
   (and the dispatch table installation functions themselves)
   to install a dispatch table for a class.

   If CLS is a class, it installs instance methods.
   If CLS is a meta class, it installs class methods.

   In either case +initialize is invoked for the corresponding class.

   The implementation must insure that the dispatch table is not
   installed until +initialize completes.  Otherwise it opens a
   potential race since the installation of the dispatch table is
   used as gate in regular method dispatch and we need to guarantee
   that +initialize is the first method invoked an that no other
   thread my dispatch messages to the class before +initialize
   completes.
 */
static void
__objc_install_dtable_for_class (Class cls)

Which implements your suggestion with the following helper functions:

static void __objc_prepare_dtable_for_class (Class cls);
- builds the dispatch table and stores it in a look-a-side buffer
  (I used the hash tables instead of a custom type).

static struct sarray *__objc_prepared_dtable_for_class (Class cls);
- access the prepared table: this is used to identify whether the dispatch
  table is currently being installed (akin to the
__objc_is_initializing_dispatch_table of the proposed patch) and is also
  used for subclasses that may be +initialized during the +initialize of the
  super class (i.e. class clusters when NSString's +initialize invokes
  GSString methods an need to copy NSString's dtable.

static void __objc_install_prepared_dtable_for_class (Class cls);
- 

static IMP __objc_get_prepared_imp (Class cls,SEL sel);


Could you please have a look and let me know what you think?  I'm still going
to write some more test, checking the class cluster behavior mentioned above
and I'll need some tests wrt to categories.  So this is not final but it should
address the main issue and the get_imp/__objc_responds_to issue.

Cheers,
David


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rfm at gnu dot org  2009-01-01 15:02 -------
Created an attachment (id=17020)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17020&action=view)
Patch for sendmsg.c to fix this bug

I've been using this patch for a while ... it modifies sendmsg.c to prevent the
bug by not installing the new dispatch table until after the initialize method
has completed (while still allowing methods called from +initialize to be
found).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307

[Bug libobjc/38307] Calling of the +initialize method is not completely thread-safe

[rfm at gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from rfm at gnu dot org  2008-12-08 08:39 -------
It turns out that solving this bug, even though it's conceptually simple, is
quite a lot of work.  I have new code to fix it, but it took me a whole day to
develop and involves extensive additions and alterations to sendmsg.c (though I
tried to keep the existing code unchanged as much as possible).
I'm running the new code on my system to see if I can find any problems before
I supply a patch, but if there's any interest I can provide a patch earlier for
people to test.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38307