* problems with linuxthreads under your latest glibc 15C rpms
@ 2000-07-28 0:57 Kevin B. Hendricks
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin B. Hendricks @ 2000-07-28 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Franz Sirl, linuxppc-dev
Hi Franz,
I am comparing your src rpms for linuxthreads and noticed that your glibc 2.1.3
-15c has a bug in its implementation of pthread_mutex_trylock.
I don't think anyone *ever* tests the native threads changes made to glibc!
Here is the code snippet:
int __pthread_mutex_trylock(pthread_mutex_t * mutex)
{
pthread_descr self;
int retcode;
switch(mutex->__m_kind) {
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP:
retcode = __pthread_trylock(&mutex->__m_lock);
mutex->__m_owner = thread_self();
return retcode;
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP:
self = thread_self();
if (mutex->__m_owner == self) {
mutex->__m_count++;
return 0;
}
retcode = __pthread_trylock(&mutex->__m_lock);
if (retcode == 0) {
mutex->__m_owner = self;
mutex->__m_count = 0;
}
return retcode;
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP:
retcode = __pthread_trylock(&mutex->__m_lock);
if (retcode == 0) {
mutex->__m_owner = thread_self();
}
return retcode;
default:
return EINVAL;
}
}
Notice that under the typical mutex case PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP, the call to
__pthread_trylock is made and the owner is set to be the current thread without
even checking the retcode. If someone else owns the lock, __pthread_trylock
will return EBUSY and the code shound not change the owner of the lock!!!!!
In fact, the only real differences in linuxthreads code between glibc-2.1.3-5a
and glibc-2.1.3-15c are to keep track of the owner under the FAST_NP lock.
All of these changes should be removed. Unless, someone has changed the spec,
the lock owner should only be kept track of when using the ERRORCHECK_NP mutex
type.
In fact, that is exactly what the ERRORCHECK mutex type is for. If you compare
the code from the FAST_NP case and the ERRORCHECK_NP case, you will see the
ERRORCHECK case tests the retcode before setting the owner.
I have not had a chance to check the remainder of the changes in linuxthreads,
but this one screamed at me when I saw it.
Perhaps you could remove the 15c rpms before they get out there too much.
I will check for other mistakes in the changes and send you a patch to fix any
other mistakes I find.
Thanks,
Kevin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* problems with linuxthreads under your latest glibc 15C rpms
@ 2000-07-28 1:05 Kevin B. Hendricks
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin B. Hendricks @ 2000-07-28 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Franz Sirl, linuxppc-dev
Hi Franz,
Whoops I forgot to attach the patch to fix this (against your latest
glibc-2.1.3-15c src rpm).
--- linuxthreads/mutex.c.prev Thu Jul 27 20:57:28 2000
+++ linuxthreads/mutex.c Thu Jul 27 20:59:06 2000
@@ -50,7 +50,9 @@
switch(mutex->__m_kind) {
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP:
retcode = __pthread_trylock(&mutex->__m_lock);
- mutex->__m_owner = thread_self();
+ if (retcode == 0) {
+ mutex->__m_owner = thread_self();
+ }
return retcode;
case PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP:
self = thread_self();
I will let you know if I find any more funny things.
Thanks,
Kevin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-07-28 1:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-07-28 1:05 problems with linuxthreads under your latest glibc 15C rpms Kevin B. Hendricks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-07-28 0:57 Kevin B. Hendricks
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).