|
|
Message-ID: <87mu9f9q3p.fsf@koorogi.info>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:07:54 -0600
From: Bobby Bingham <koorogi@...rogi.info>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: race condition in sem_wait
Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@...media-net.de> writes:
> Hello
>
> i discovered recently a race condition while playing with threads and
> sem_wait/sem_post
> sem_wait may fail with errno set EAGAIN which is not valid since only
> sem_trywait is able to set that errno code.
> this was causing a bug with a later select() and accept() which failed
> since accept does not work if errno is set to EAGAIN.
Whether select/accept work or not should not be impacted by any existing
value in errno.
> from my point of view the bug is in sem_timedwait.c
>
> if (!sem_trywait(sem)) return 0;
>
> int spins = 100;
> while (spins-- && sem->__val[0] <= 0 && !sem->__val[1]) a_spin();
>
> while (sem_trywait(sem)) {
>
>
> the fist sem_trywait will fail with -1 and sets EAGAIN. but the second
> sem_trywait will not fail and does return 0. the problem now is that
> errno is still present and not reset.
> this may cause if sem_post is called from a second thread on the same
> semaphore.
> of course the same bug affects sem_timedwait itself.
> so i assume sem_wait is not thread safe which is bad and is not follow
> the posix specification
To quote POSIX [1]:
The value of errno should only be examined when it is indicated to
be valid by a function's return value. [...] The setting of errno
after a successful call to a function is unspecified unless the
description of that function specifies that errno shall not be
modified.
If sem_wait() returns zero, then the value in errno after the call
returns is not meaningful in any way.
[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/errno.html
>
> or am i wrong here?
>
>
> Sebastian
Bobby
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.