From: Yubin Ruan <ablacktshirt@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCTH 0/2] pthread_mutexattr_setrobust() and pthread_mutex_consistent()
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJYFCiNJaLCcmG+M0+VtM6zk9cB6MCguz0ppt_hfGShAgEUvGw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170913083446.GA16265@HP.internal.baidu.com>
2017-09-13 16:34 GMT+08:00 Yubin Ruan <ablacktshirt@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 02:41:29PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hello Yubin,
>>
>> [...]
>> > +.B PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST
>> > +can be set on a mutex attribute object so that when the owner of the mutex
>> > +dies or when the process containing such a locked mutex performs
>> > +.IR execve (2)
>> > +, any future attempts to call
>> > +.IR pthread_mutex_lock (3)
>> > +on this mutex will suceed and return
>> > +.B EOWNERDEAD
>> > +to indicate that the original owner no longer exists and the mutex is left in
>> > +an inconsistent state.
>> How did you verify the point regarding execve(2)? I don't see this
>> detailed mentioned in the standards or in the glibc source.
>
> Please see below the program I used to verify that. I haven't go into too much
> detail in the POSIX standard, though. I think I must have read it at [1] or
> somewhere else (don't remember...).
>
> And also, it is mentioned at [1] that when the process containing such a locked
> mutex unmaps the memory containing the mutex, the mutex is unlocked... I think
> this is trivial so I don't add it.
>
> Thanks,
> Yubin
>
> [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/816-5168/pthread-mutexattr-setrobust-np-3c/index.html
>
> /************ verify-execve.c *****************/
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <sys/ipc.h>
> #include <sys/shm.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #define VERIFY_KEY 20170010
> #define ERROR_ON(func_name) \
> fprintf(stderr, "error: " #func_name ": line[%d]: %s\n", __LINE__, strerror(errno));
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> int shmid = -1;
> struct shm *shm = NULL;
> mode_t previous_umask = -1;
> int ret_code = 0;
> pthread_mutex_t *mutexp = NULL;
> pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> pid_t pid = 0;
> char *const * execve_arg = {"cat", NULL};
> char *const * execve_env = {NULL};
>
> previous_umask = umask(0);
> shmid = shmget(VERIFY_KEY, sizeof(pthread_mutex_t), IPC_CREAT | 0666);
> if (shmid < 0) {
> ERROR_ON(shmget);
> return -1;
> }
>
> shm = (struct shm *)shmat(shmid, NULL, 0);
> if ((void *)-1 == shm) {
> ERROR_ON(shmat);
> return -1;
> }
> memset(shm, 0, sizeof(pthread_mutex_t));
>
> printf("Successfully attached shared memory, trying to lock\n");
>
> //initialize the lock
> mutexp = (pthread_mutex_t *)shm;
> pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> pthread_mutexattr_setrobust(&attr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST);
> pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> pthread_mutex_init(mutexp, &attr);
>
> ret_code = pthread_mutex_lock(mutexp);
> if (0 == ret_code) {
> printf("successfull acquired the lock. Going to fork/execve now\n");
> } else {
> ERROR_ON(pthread_mutex_lock);
> return -1;
> }
>
> pid = fork();
> if (0 == pid) {
> printf("child would sleep for 2 sec and then lock the mutex\n");
> sleep(2);
> ret_code = pthread_mutex_lock(mutexp);
> if (EOWNERDEAD == ret_code) {
> printf("child see EOWNERDEAD returned. Verification completed\n");
> pthread_mutex_consistent(mutexp);
> pthread_mutex_unlock(mutexp);
> exit(0);
> } else {
> printf("child see [%d] returned\n", ret_code);
> exit(1);
> }
> } else {
> printf("parent going to execve(/bin/cat)\n");
> execve("/bin/cat", execve_arg, execve_env);
Note that execve(/bin/cat) here is on purpose: it "suspends" the
parent so that the child will not be killed because parent dies, such
that the child have enough time to check whether pthread_mutex_lock(3)
will return EOWNERDEAD. So, after executing this program, wait 2
seconds before pressing your keyboard ;-)
Yubin
> }
> return 0;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 4:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-20 9:43 Yubin Ruan
2017-08-21 2:25 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-08-21 2:31 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-08-22 0:33 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-08-22 2:19 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-08-26 14:10 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-09-11 1:50 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-09-11 20:35 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-09-12 12:41 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-09-13 1:39 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-09-13 4:09 ` Yubin Ruan [this message]
2017-09-13 12:28 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2017-09-15 1:34 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-09-13 15:00 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-opages)
2017-09-15 2:49 ` Yubin Ruan
2017-09-15 7:53 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
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=CAJYFCiNJaLCcmG+M0+VtM6zk9cB6MCguz0ppt_hfGShAgEUvGw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ablacktshirt@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
/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: link
Be 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).