Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>>>>>>>> I'm pushing your findings to the list, also as my colleagues showed
>>>>>>>>>> strong interest - this thing may explain rare corruptions for us as 
>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>> I thought a bit about that likely u_mode-related crash in your test 
>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>> and have the following theory so far: If the xeno_current_mode 
>>>>>>>>>> storage
>>>>>>>>>> is allocated on the application heap (!HAVE_THREAD, that's also what 
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> are forced to use), it is automatically freed on thread termination 
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the context of the dying thread. If the thread is already migrated to
>>>>>>>>>> secondary or if that happens while it is cleaned up (i.e. before 
>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>> for exit into the kernel), there is no problem, Xenomai will not 
>>>>>>>>>> touch
>>>>>>>>>> the mode storage anymore. But if the thread happens to delete the
>>>>>>>>>> storage "silently", without any migration, the final exit will 
>>>>>>>>>> trigger
>>>>>>>>>> one further access. And that takes place against an invalid head 
>>>>>>>>>> area at
>>>>>>>>>> this point.
>>>>>>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is the issue we observed.
>>>>>>>>>> If that is true, all we need to do is to force a migration before
>>>>>>>>>> releasing the mode storage. Could you check this?
>>>>>>>>> No, that does not fly. Calling, for instance, 
>>>>>>>>> __wrap_pthread_mutex_lock
>>>>>>>>> in another TSD cleanup function is which could be called after the
>>>>>>>>> current_mode TSD cleanup is allowed and could trigger a switch to
>>>>>>>>> primary mode and a write to the u_mode.
>>>>>>>> Good point. Mmh. Another, but ABI-breaking, way would be to add a
>>>>>>>> syscall for deregistering the u_mode pointer...
>>>>>>> That is the thing we did to verify that we had this bug. But this
>>>>>>> syscall would be also called too soon, and suffers from the TSD cleanup
>>>>>>> functions order again.
>>>>>> Right, the only complete fix without losing functionality is to add an
>>>>>> option to our ABI for requesting kernel-managed memory if dynamic
>>>>>> allocation is necessary (i.e. no TLS is available).
>>>>> No. TLS may as well suffer from the same issue, since it is handled by
>>>>> the glibc or libgcc, over which we have no control. So yes, it may work
>>>>> by chance today, but may as well stop working tomorrow. We use
>>>>> kernel-managed memory all the time, final point.
>>>> I think we are still in the solution finding process, no need for early
>>>> conclusions.
>>>> See, we actually do not need kernel-managed storage for u_mode at all.
>>>> u_mode is an optimization, mostly for our fast user space mutexes. We
>>>> can indeed switch off all updates by the kernel and will still be able
>>>> to provide all required features - just less optimally. Adding a third
>>>> state, "invalid", we can make all mutex users assume they need the slow
>>>> syscall path on uncontended acquisition. And assert_nrt will probably be
>>>> happy about a syscall replacement for u_mode when it became invalid.
>>>> This invalid state (maybe u_mode == -1 with TLS, and mode_key == NULL
>>>> without it) is entered during thread clean up with the help of a TSD
>>>> destructor. The destructor will then deregister our u_mode storage from
>>>> the kernel so that it doesn't matter if we release the memory
>>>> immediately and explicitly (w/o TLS) or leave this to glibc (/w TLS).
>>>> And in this model, it also doesn't matter when precisely the destructor
>>>> is called.
>>> We have to add a syscall to propagate this value to kernel-space, and
>>> clutter the kernel-space code which uses u_mode with tests to see if
>>> u_mode is valid or not, and we have to clutter the code which uses
>>> u_mode in user-space to handle that invalid state. And every time we add
>>> a user of u_mode, we have to think about the invalid state. A lot of
>>> clutter.
>>> The two last issues may be removed by handling the invalid state only in
>>> the function which returns the current mode. If the state is invalid,
>>> then issue the syscall. Admittedly, we get two syscalls for mutex locks,
>>> but who cares.
>>> However, what for? Allocating u_mode in the process private sem_heap, as
>>> I suggest since the beggining, looks so much simpler. No test, no
>>> special case, the address is always valid as long as the tcb is valid.
>> Try implementing it.
>> I will post a prototype for my approach within a minute. Its major
>> implementation advantage is that there is no need to touch any skin,
>> neither on user nor kernel side, and that there is no need for backward
>> compatible syscalls.
>> Another advantage of my approach is that it does not touch the fast
>> paths of mutex handling (before deregistration) - well, at lest almost
>> for non-TLS, but absolutely not for TLS.
> Do not forget the kernel-space part which detects whether we are using
> the older or newer user-space.

Not required (famous last words).

The only bit that should be missing in my RFC is the exit() trap,
probably a two-liner. Will look into this soon.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to