public inbox for glibc-cvs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella@sourceware.org> To: glibc-cvs@sourceware.org Subject: [glibc/azanella/master-posix_clock] nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:10:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190625221021.40990.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;h=126a1454d2a18003e1ac718b5aac84138dd2ca5c commit 126a1454d2a18003e1ac718b5aac84138dd2ca5c Author: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> Date: Mon Jun 24 12:39:02 2019 +0000 nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions As recommended by the comments in the implementations of pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock and pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock, let's move the timeout validity checks into the corresponding pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full and pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full functions. Since these functions may be called with abstime == NULL, an extra check for that is necessary too. * nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c (__pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full): Check validity of abstime parameter. (__pthread_rwlock_rwlock_full): Likewise. * nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c * (pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock): Remove check for validity of abstime parameter. * nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c * (pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock): Likewise. Diff: --- ChangeLog | 9 +++++++++ nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c | 10 ---------- nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c | 10 ---------- 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index 6c769ca..2509995 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,5 +1,14 @@ 2019-06-21 Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> + nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions + * nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c (__pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full): + Check validity of abstime parameter. + (__pthread_rwlock_rwlock_full): Likewise. + * nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c (pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock): + Remove check for validity of abstime parameter. + * nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c (pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock): + Likewise. + nptl: Add POSIX-proposed pthread_cond_clockwait which behaves just like pthread_cond_timedwait except it always measures abstime against the supplied clockid. diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c index 89ba21a..120b880 100644 --- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c +++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c @@ -282,6 +282,16 @@ __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock, { unsigned int r; + /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous + implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there + would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the + validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be + immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */ + if (abstime + && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000 + || abstime->tv_nsec < 0)) + return EINVAL; + /* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer. This is a deadlock situation we recognize and report. */ if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer) @@ -576,6 +586,16 @@ static __always_inline int __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock, const struct timespec *abstime) { + /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous + implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there + would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the + validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be + immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */ + if (abstime + && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000 + || abstime->tv_nsec < 0)) + return EINVAL; + /* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer. This is a deadlock situation we recognize and report. */ if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer) diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c index aa00530..84c1983 100644 --- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c +++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c @@ -23,15 +23,5 @@ int pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock, const struct timespec *abstime) { - /* Make sure the passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous - implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there - would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the - validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be - immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */ - /* ??? Just move this to __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full? */ - if (__glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000 - || abstime->tv_nsec < 0)) - return EINVAL; - return __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full (rwlock, abstime); } diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c index 3c92e44..f0b745d 100644 --- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c +++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c @@ -23,15 +23,5 @@ int pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock, const struct timespec *abstime) { - /* Make sure the passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous - implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there - would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the - validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be - immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */ - /* ??? Just move this to __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full? */ - if (__glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000 - || abstime->tv_nsec < 0)) - return EINVAL; - return __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full (rwlock, abstime); }
next reply other threads:[~2019-06-25 22:10 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-06-25 22:10 Adhemerval Zanella [this message] 2019-06-26 18:37 Adhemerval Zanella 2019-07-02 17:26 Adhemerval Zanella
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190625221021.40990.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=azanella@sourceware.org \ --cc=glibc-cvs@sourceware.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).