From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 9790 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2020 22:15:01 -0000
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 6 Jul 2020 22:15:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 16367 invoked by uid 550); 6 Jul 2020 22:14:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 16349 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2020 22:14:56 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yqxmail.com; s=dkim;
	t=1594073684; bh=nYYPZGESfQLjQeM4s1bIaI3salnpQGdqgA3Ob+ua6qg=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=eA+1O40wR1Q+TVX4LlCOGdm5P7kt+yu7UGofqNrElZIRISIL7Tb4TAsdh+RWktEGD
	 54cZUvc6IMBLjtSRq/r+qBMrazv0t66soCvwrkmipItObxE95aKdC+3Ni9u3D0WFxK
	 diKGgdxR+yh8sbyZG3s+hcwlLXzhQuxhPl1E03t0mSTsjUhmMQf1KRUVQOi7ocnT4p
	 jXuIv8l0Hb+Hfei776Ce6hPM4zaUgFeAl1wnisJP42ijgugRvmSE6GOGO+MSbJ+rFw
	 Gwy0SU+Jpj3lxgu/Zqw+SEu7tY8EKlKfXuJzf3quV+Wpz8oWO62Tlano8qWkJ/cPcv
	 52eCRmtoQh/0A==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 15:14:43 -0700
From: Hydro Flask <hydroflask@yqxmail.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
In-Reply-To: <20200706220024.GJ6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <0217b8838100175725993b0ed0114ee7@thelig.ht>
 <20200630044323.GD6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <b3650e579c2b20b6e076e5c0036f7740@yqxmail.com>
 <20200630092644.GE6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20200630145851.GD13001@voyager>
 <275470aa6820d420339929a1fe409d89@yqxmail.com>
 <477cc243-b950-3363-e9f4-4c8a203b6bea@samersoff.net>
 <20200630195409.GH6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <300a1bdb9e9041bf05312ef032cbdc66@yqxmail.com>
 <20200706220024.GJ6430@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Message-ID: <d426ef267f0f1d5728f144115ed3f2c5@yqxmail.com>
Subject: Re: [musl] Potential deadlock in pthread_kill()

On 2020-07-06 15:00, Rich Felker wrote:
> Yes, I see it clearly now. Sorry it took a while. I have prepared the
> attached patch which I'll push soon if there are no problems.

Needs one more tiny tweak. I noticed that pthread_cancel() calls 
pthread_kill(). That means pthread_kill() must be async-cancel-safe. If 
an asynchronous cancellation happens after pthread_kill() grabs the 
killlock, then it will deadlock because the asynchronous 
pthread_exit(PTHREAD_CANCELED) call will then recursively try to grab 
killlock.

The solution as far as I can tell is to not just block app signals when 
grabbing killlock, but all signals.