Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:26:32 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org>
To:        Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, peter@holm.cc
Cc:        Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r329448 - head/sys/kern
Message-ID:  <20180217162632.GQ94212@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHG%2BXxobj9ziASdW3ugQoxd843K%2BncDSyLbEEGQ20QzAQg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201802170848.w1H8mkfb081764@repo.freebsd.org> <20180217112738.GO94212@kib.kiev.ua> <CAGudoHG%2BXxobj9ziASdW3ugQoxd843K%2BncDSyLbEEGQ20QzAQg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:07:07PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 01:27:38PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 08:48:46AM +0000, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > Author: mjg
> > > Date: Sat Feb 17 08:48:45 2018
> > > New Revision: 329448
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/329448
> > >
> > > Log:
> > >   exit: get rid of PROC_SLOCK when checking a process to report
> > Was this tested ?
> >
> 
> I was trussing multithreaded microbenchmarks, no issues.
> 
> > In particular, are you aware of r309539 ?
> >
> 
> So it looks like I misread the code - I have grepped
> thread_suspend_switch operating with the proc locked and misread
> thread_suspend_one's assert as PROC_LOCK_ASSERT.
> 
> That said, I think this is harmless. Regardless of the lock the
> inspecting thread can race and check "too soon". Even for a case where
> it decides to report, I don't see anything which would depend on the
> suspending thread to finish.
It was definitely not harmless when I tried to avoid the spin lock there,
but I do not remember exact failure mode.  Most likely, it was a missed
report of the traced child indeed, but I am not sure that truss triggered
it.  Most likely, Peter Holm was the reporter, since he is listed in 
the commit.

> 
> However, locking can be employed in a way which is avoided in the common
> case:
> 
> diff --git a/sys/kern/kern_exit.c b/sys/kern/kern_exit.c
> index b063bda5b7ff..4ae24bcd7059 100644
> --- a/sys/kern/kern_exit.c
> +++ b/sys/kern/kern_exit.c
> @@ -1174,6 +1174,7 @@ kern_wait6(struct thread *td, idtype_t idtype, id_t
> id, int *status,
>         struct proc *p, *q;
>         pid_t pid;
>         int error, nfound, ret;
> +       bool report;
> 
>         AUDIT_ARG_VALUE((int)idtype);   /* XXX - This is likely wrong! */
>         AUDIT_ARG_PID((pid_t)id);       /* XXX - This may be wrong! */
> @@ -1226,27 +1227,36 @@ kern_wait6(struct thread *td, idtype_t idtype, id_t
> id, int *status,
>                 PROC_LOCK_ASSERT(p, MA_OWNED);
> 
>                 if ((options & WTRAPPED) != 0 &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_TRACED) != 0 &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & (P_STOPPED_TRACE | P_STOPPED_SIG)) != 0 &&
> -                   p->p_suspcount == p->p_numthreads &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) {
> +                   (p->p_flag & P_TRACED) != 0) {
> +                       PROC_SLOCK(p);
> +                       report =
> +                           ((p->p_flag & (P_STOPPED_TRACE |
> P_STOPPED_SIG)) &&
> +                           p->p_suspcount == p->p_numthreads &&
> +                           (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0);
> +                       PROC_SUNLOCK(p);
> +                       if (report) {
>                         CTR4(KTR_PTRACE,
>                             "wait: returning trapped pid %d status %#x "
>                             "(xstat %d) xthread %d",
>                             p->p_pid, W_STOPCODE(p->p_xsig), p->p_xsig,
>                             p->p_xthread != NULL ?
>                             p->p_xthread->td_tid : -1);
> -                       report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status, options,
> -                           CLD_TRAPPED);
> -                       return (0);
> +                               report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status,
> +                                   options, CLD_TRAPPED);
> +                               return (0);
> +                       }
>                 }
>                 if ((options & WUNTRACED) != 0 &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_STOPPED_SIG) != 0 &&
> -                   p->p_suspcount == p->p_numthreads &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) {
> -                       report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status, options,
> +                               report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status,
> +                                   options, CLD_TRAPPED);
> +                               return (0);
> +                       }
>                 }
>                 if ((options & WUNTRACED) != 0 &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_STOPPED_SIG) != 0 &&
> -                   p->p_suspcount == p->p_numthreads &&
> -                   (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) {
> -                       report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status, options,
> -                           CLD_STOPPED);
> -                       return (0);
> +                   (p->p_flag & P_STOPPED_SIG) != 0) {
> +                       PROC_SLOCK(p);
> +                       report = (p->p_suspcount == p->p_numthreads &&
> +                           ((p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0));
> +                       PROC_SUNLOCK(p);
> +                       if (report) {
> +                               report_alive_proc(td, p, siginfo, status,
> +                                   options, CLD_STOPPED);
> +                               return (0);
> +                       }
>                 }
>                 if ((options & WCONTINUED) != 0 &&
>                     (p->p_flag & P_CONTINUED) != 0) {
> 
If this works, I am fine with the patch.  Still, I would prefer to have
the original commit reverted for now, until the fix is tested.  Then,
commit updated patch.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180217162632.GQ94212>