Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:26 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > When a monitor is connected to a Spice chardev, the monitor cleanup
>> > can dead-lock:
>> >
>> > #0 0x00007f43446637fd in __lll_lock_wait () at /lib64/libpthread.so.0
>> > #1 0x00007f434465ccf4 in pthread_mutex_lock () at /lib64/libpthread.so.0
>> > #2 0x0000556dd79f22ba in qemu_mutex_lock_impl (mutex=0x556dd81c9220
>> > <monitor_lock>, file=0x556dd7ae3648 "/home/elmarco/src/qq/monitor.c",
>> > line=645) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/util/qemu-thread-posix.c:66
>> > #3 0x0000556dd7431bd5 in monitor_qapi_event_queue
>> > (event=QAPI_EVENT_SPICE_DISCONNECTED, qdict=0x556dd9abc850,
>> > errp=0x7fffb7bbddd8) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/monitor.c:645
>> > #4 0x0000556dd79d476b in qapi_event_send_spice_disconnected
>> > (server=0x556dd98ee760, client=0x556ddaaa8560, errp=0x556dd82180d0
>> > <error_abort>) at qapi/qapi-events-ui.c:149
>> > #5 0x0000556dd7870fc1 in channel_event (event=3, info=0x556ddad1b590) at
>> > /home/elmarco/src/qq/ui/spice-core.c:235
>> > #6 0x00007f434560a6bb in reds_handle_channel_event (reds=<optimized
>> > out>, event=3, info=0x556ddad1b590) at reds.c:316
>> > #7 0x00007f43455f393b in main_dispatcher_self_handle_channel_event
>> > (info=0x556ddad1b590, event=3, self=0x556dd9a7d8c0) at
>> > main-dispatcher.c:197
>> > #8 0x00007f43455f393b in main_dispatcher_channel_event
>> > (self=0x556dd9a7d8c0, event=event@entry=3, info=0x556ddad1b590) at
>> > main-dispatcher.c:197
>> > #9 0x00007f4345612833 in red_stream_push_channel_event
>> > (s=s@entry=0x556ddae2ef40, event=event@entry=3) at red-stream.c:414
>> > #10 0x00007f434561286b in red_stream_free (s=0x556ddae2ef40) at
>> > red-stream.c:388
>> > #11 0x00007f43455f9ddc in red_channel_client_finalize
>> > (object=0x556dd9bb21a0) at red-channel-client.c:347
>> > #12 0x00007f434b5f9fb9 in g_object_unref () at /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0
>> > #13 0x00007f43455fc212 in red_channel_client_push (rcc=0x556dd9bb21a0) at
>> > red-channel-client.c:1341
>> > #14 0x0000556dd76081ba in spice_port_set_fe_open (chr=0x556dd9925e20,
>> > fe_open=0) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/chardev/spice.c:241
>> > #15 0x0000556dd796d74a in qemu_chr_fe_set_open (be=0x556dd9a37c00,
>> > fe_open=0) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/chardev/char-fe.c:340
>> > #16 0x0000556dd796d4d9 in qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers (b=0x556dd9a37c00,
>> > fd_can_read=0x0, fd_read=0x0, fd_event=0x0, be_change=0x0, opaque=0x0,
>> > context=0x0, set_open=true) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/chardev/char-fe.c:280
>> > #17 0x0000556dd796d359 in qemu_chr_fe_deinit (b=0x556dd9a37c00,
>> > del=false) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/chardev/char-fe.c:233
>> > #18 0x0000556dd7432240 in monitor_data_destroy (mon=0x556dd9a37c00) at
>> > /home/elmarco/src/qq/monitor.c:786
>> > #19 0x0000556dd743b968 in monitor_cleanup () at
>> > /home/elmarco/src/qq/monitor.c:4683
>> > #20 0x0000556dd75ce776 in main (argc=3, argv=0x7fffb7bbe458,
>> > envp=0x7fffb7bbe478) at /home/elmarco/src/qq/vl.c:4660
>> >
>> > Because spice code tries to emit a "disconnected" signal on the
>> > monitors. Fix this dead-lock by releasing the monitor lock for
>> > flush/destroy.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > monitor.c | 2 ++
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
>> > index 7fe89daa87..b55e604a98 100644
>> > --- a/monitor.c
>> > +++ b/monitor.c
>> > @@ -4643,8 +4643,10 @@ void monitor_cleanup(void)
>> > monitor_destroyed = true;
>> > QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(mon, &mon_list, entry, next) {
>> > QTAILQ_REMOVE(&mon_list, mon, entry);
>> > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&monitor_lock);
>> > monitor_flush(mon);
>> > monitor_data_destroy(mon);
>> > + qemu_mutex_lock(&monitor_lock);
>> > g_free(mon);
>> > }
>> > qemu_mutex_unlock(&monitor_lock);
>>
>> I think a comment hinting at the reason for relinquishing the lock would
>> be in order. Perhaps
>>
>> /* Permit QAPI event emission from character frontend release */
>> qemu_mutex_unlock(&monitor_lock);
>>
>> We need to demonstrate calling monitor_flush() and
>> monitor_data_destroy() without holding @monitor_lock is safe.
>>
>> @monitor_lock's comment states it "protects mon_list,
>> monitor_qapi_event_state." Looks plausible from how it's used.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, monitor_flush() and monitor_data_destroy() don't
>> access mon_list and monitor_qapi_event_state.
>>
>> monitor_cleanup()'s loop itself is safe because it uses
>> QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(), unlike similar loops elsewhere.
>>
>> I think we're good. I'd like you to work this argument into the commit
>> message.
>
> What about adding:
>
> monitor_lock protects mon_list, monitor_qapi_event_state and
> monitor_destroyed. monitor_flush() and monitor_data_destroy() don't
> access any of those variables.
>
> monitor_cleanup()'s loop is safe because it uses
> QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(), and no further monitor can be added after
> calling monitor_cleanup() thanks to monitor_destroyed check in
> monitor_list_append().
Works for me. Thanks!
