[Bug nptl/12683] Race conditions in pthread cancellation

["carlos at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12683

--- Comment #17 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #16)
> There are several points at which the cancellation signal could arrive:
> 
> 1. Before the final "testcancel" before the syscall is made.
> 2. Between the "testcancel" and the syscall.
> 3. While the syscall is blocked and no side effects have yet taken place.
> 4. While the syscall is blocked but with some side effects already having
> taken place (e.g. a partial read or write).
> 5. After the syscall has returned.
> 
> You want to act on cancellation in cases 1-3 but not in case 4 or 5.
> Handling case 1 is of course trivial, since you're about to do a conditional
> branch based on whether the thread has received a cancellation request;
> nothing needs to be done in the signal handler (but it also wouldn't hurt to
> handle it from the signal handler). Case 2 can be caught by the signal
> handler determining that the saved program counter (from the ucontext_t) is
> in some address range beginning just before the "testcancel" and ending with
> the syscall instruction.
> 
> The rest of the cases are the "tricky" part but it turns out they too are
> easy:
> 
> Case 3: In this case, except for certain syscalls that ALWAYS fail with
> EINTR even for non-interrupting signals, the kernel will reset the program
> counter to point at the syscall instruction during signal handling, so that
> the syscall is restarted when the signal handler returns. So, from the
> signal handler's standpoint, this looks the same as case 2, and thus it's
> taken care of.
> 
> Case 4: In this case, the kernel cannot restart the syscall; when it's
> interrupted by a signal, the kernel must cause the syscall to return with
> whatever partial result it obtained (e.g. partial read or write). In this
> case, the saved program counter points just after the syscall instruction,
> so the signal handler won't act on cancellation.
> 
> Case 5: OK, I lied. This one is trivial too since the program counter is
> past the syscall instruction already.

Excellent. I like your idea then. It seems like a list of PC's using either
markers or dwarf2 is the way to go here.

> What about syscalls that fail with EINTR even when the signal handler is
> non-interrupting? In this case, the syscall wrapper code can just check the
> cancellation flag when the errno result is EINTR, and act on cancellation if
> it's set. Note that an exception needs to be made for close(), where EINTR
> should be treated as EINPROGRESS and thus not permit cancellation to take
> place.

We'll need a big disclaimer about close and a detailed comment. I know some of
the details there, specifically that although EINTR has been returned the close
will complete.

> BTW, I should justify why the signal handler should be non-interrupting
> (SA_RESTART): if it weren't, you would risk causing spurious EINTR in
> programs not written to handle it, e.g. if the user incorrectly send signal
> 32/33 to the process or if pthread_cancel were called while cancellation is
> disabled in the target thread. The kernel folks have spent a great deal of
> effort getting rid of spurious EINTRs (which cause all sorts of ugly bugs)
> and it would be a shame to reintroduce them. Also it doesn't buy you
> anything moving the cancellation action to the EINTR check after the syscall
> returns; the same check in the signal handler that handles case 2 above also
> handles the case of restartable syscalls correctly, for free.

That makes sense.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.