Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/11/23/07:20:29
On Nov 19 16:04, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I previously reported, there is a weird behavior of CYGWIN implementation
> of SYSV semaphores, and a bug exposition for one problem is attached below
> (I'm still looking into some other issues in there).
>
> If the code is compiled with both BUG1 and BUG2 defined (as shown), it
> will abort at iteration 16384 (just the default semaphore overflow).
>
> Undefining BUG2 causes the problem disappear (because there is no longer
> UNDO on the 1st semaphore). Also, running the code with just one semaphore
> (undef BUG1) causes no problem. Finally, replacing "#if 1" with "#if 0"
> to unlock the semaphore allows to run indefinitely with any combination of
> BUG1/2 (just remember to issue ipcs/ipcrm to start with a clean slate at
> all times).
>
> Reviewing the code of CYGSERVER, there is an apparent bug in the semundo_clear()
> routine (at around line 536, which looks like "i++, sunptr++;", and advances
> both undo indexes even when "if (sunptr->un_id == semid)" (line 524)
> failed to match semid. This means that for two (or more) semaphores, the
> undo index "i" moves ahead even when nothing was done while still searching.
> This causes the adjust pointer to miss the position to clear, and overflow
> the semaphore adjust value (line 1207, semop(), by the virtue of
> semundo_adjust()'s logic at about line 486).
This is original FreeBSD code, so I have a hard time to follow the idea
that it might be wrong. I stared a long while into the source now, and
I compared that with the latest version of the upstream code.
The i counter is in lockstep with the sunptr pointer. The only time
something happens is if sunptr->un_num (== suptr->un_ent[i].un_num)
equals semnum. In that case, suptr->un_ent[i] is overwritten with
with the last element uptr->un_ent[suptr->un_cnt], and then the code
calls continue, thus NOT incrementing i and sunptr. So the same
element, now containing the contents of suptr->un_ent[suptr->un_cnt],
is evaluated again.
Am I missing something?
Incidentally this seems to be wrong now in the new upstream code, which
uses for rather than while, thus i and sunptr are actually incremented
in the above case, too.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -