From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: "Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, Арсений <a@saur0n.science>,
musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] Mutexes are not unlocking
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:53:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201123145329.GU534@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201123114124.GP1312820@redhat.com>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:41:24AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/11/20 14:28 -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> >On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:23:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>* Rich Felker:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:43:35PM +0300, Арсений wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> The problem is that mutex is not got unlocked after the first unlock().
> >>>>
> >>>> libstdc++ uses a wrapper for pthread called gthreads. This wrapper
> >>>> checks for the state of the mutex system. For
> >>>> example, pthread_mutex_unlock() is called in a following way:
> >>>>
> >>>> static inline int
> >>>> __gthread_mutex_unlock (__gthread_mutex_t *__mutex)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (__gthread_active_p ())
> >>>> return __gthrw_(pthread_mutex_unlock) (__mutex);
> >>>> else
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Yes. This code is invalid (it misinterprets weak symbol information to
> >>> draw incorrect conclusions about whether threads may be in use) and
> >>> thus is disabled in builds of gcc/libstdc++ targeting musl-based
> >>> systems. GCC and glibc-based distro folks mostly don't care because
> >>> it only breaks static linking, but some of them actually hack gcc's
> >>> libpthread.a into one giant .o file to work around the problem rather
> >>> than fixing this in gcc...
> >>
> >>GCC 11 has a fix (if used along with glibc 2.32), but I wonder if it's
>
> The GCC 11 change isn't used for mutexes. I use __libc_single_threaded
> for deciding whether to use atomics or plain non-atomic ops for
> ref-count updates. But for actions like mutex locks I don't use it,
> because it would do the wrong thing for code like:
>
> int main() {
> std::mutex m;
> std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m);
> std::thread t( []{} };
> t.join();
> }
>
> In this program __libc_single_threaded is true when we construct the
> lock_guard, but false when it is destroyed at the end of the block. If
> we checked __libc_single_threaded for mutex locking/unlocking then we
> would be inconsistent here, we would elide the lock but try to unlock
> a mutex that was never locked, which would be UB.
>
> Whatever condition we check to decide whether to call the pthreads
> function needs to give the same result for the lock and unlock. That
> condition is currently __gthread_active_p, which checks if a symbol is
> weak.
>
> >>going to run into a similar issue because inlined code from older GCC
> >>versions uses a diverging version of the check.
>
> No, everything uses the same check. GCC 11 didn't change anything for
> mutexes.
>
> >>Jonathan, more context is here:
> >>
> >> <https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/11/22/1>
> >
> >Uhg, that's a really nasty problem. Is __gthread_active_p() also
> >inlined? Or can it be given a definition to mitigate the problem?
>
> It's inlined, and making it a non-inline PLT call would negate some of
> the point of using it (it's there mostly as an optimization).
>
> But I don't think inlining it is a problem, because its definition
> hasn't changed.
>
> I think the right thing to do is a new configuration which completely
> avoids using weak symbols in gthreads, and just calls the pthread
> symbols directly. A future version of glibc is going to move pthreads
> symbols into libc anyway:
> https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2019-10/msg00080.html
> After that, the __gthread_active_p condition is just a wasted branch,
> because it will be unconditionally true:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89714
The potential problem is that removing the condition makes an
inconsistency with binaries where the condition was already inlined.
> If the musl libstdc++ removes the use of __gthread_active_p, but code
> compiled against a glibc libstdc++ inlines the __gthread_active_p
> check, then it seems to me that musl (or the musl libstdc++) needs to
> ensure that the inlined __gthread_active_p will return true. It can do
> that by providing a non-weak symbol called __pthread_key_create (the
> symbol won't be called, it just has to exist).
The target files for -musl tuples disable the hack entirely by adding
t-gthr-noweak and -DGTHREAD_USE_WEAK=0 where appropriate. So there's
no issue here. OP's problem was trying to make glibc-linked binaries
and use them with musl's very limited glibc-ABI-compat capabilities,
which is not recommended; it's only intended as an aid in running
binaryware (esp shared libraries) you can't build/get native versions
of.
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-23 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-20 5:25 a
2020-11-20 5:58 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-21 6:46 ` Re[2]: " a
2020-11-21 15:51 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-22 18:43 ` Re[2]: " Арсений
2020-11-22 19:11 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-22 19:23 ` Florian Weimer
2020-11-22 19:28 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-22 19:45 ` Re[2]: " Арсений
2020-11-22 20:05 ` Арсений
2020-11-23 12:24 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-11-23 14:56 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-23 16:58 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-11-23 11:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-11-23 14:53 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2020-11-23 16:19 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-11-23 16:51 ` Rich Felker
2020-11-23 17:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-11-23 17:18 ` Florian Weimer
2020-11-23 16:59 ` Florian Weimer
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=20201123145329.GU534@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=a@saur0n.science \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).