diff options
| author | Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com> | 2023-04-08 19:41:50 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com> | 2023-04-08 19:57:22 +0200 |
| commit | f0d487dce529d46ffe7925e9f8f0435781e49422 (patch) | |
| tree | e9d4d2f5ff31cab72ae41a861e512d088dcdbc89 | |
| parent | 4f87a63edcef5c8c06229ff13e0f64f427537378 (diff) | |
| download | rust-f0d487dce529d46ffe7925e9f8f0435781e49422.tar.gz rust-f0d487dce529d46ffe7925e9f8f0435781e49422.zip | |
sync::mpsc: synchronize receiver disconnect with initialization
Receiver disconnection relies on the incorrect assumption that `head.index != tail.index` implies that the channel is initialized (i.e `head.block` and `tail.block` point to allocated blocks). However, it can happen that `head.index != tail.index` and `head.block == null` at the same time which leads to a segfault when a channel is dropped in that state. This can happen because initialization is performed in two steps. First, the tail block is allocated and the `tail.block` is set. If that is successful `head.block` is set to the same pointer. Importantly, initialization is skipped if `tail.block` is not null. Therefore we can have the following situation: 1. Thread A starts to send the first value of the channel, observes that `tail.block` is null and begins initialization. It sets `tail.block` to point to a newly allocated block and then gets preempted. `head.block` is still null at this point. 2. Thread B starts to send the second value of the channel, observes that `tail.block` *is not* null and proceeds with writing its value in the allocated tail block and sets `tail.index` to 1. 3. Thread B drops the receiver of the channel which observes that `head.index != tail.index` (0 and 1 respectively), therefore there must be messages to drop. It starts traversing the linked list from `head.block` which is still a null pointer, leading to a segfault. This PR fixes this problem by waiting for initialization to complete when `head.index != tail.index` and the `head.block` is still null. A similar check exists in `start_recv` for similar reasons. Fixes #110001 Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com>
| -rw-r--r-- | library/std/src/sync/mpmc/list.rs | 12 |
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/library/std/src/sync/mpmc/list.rs b/library/std/src/sync/mpmc/list.rs index ec6c0726ac7..406a331a309 100644 --- a/library/std/src/sync/mpmc/list.rs +++ b/library/std/src/sync/mpmc/list.rs @@ -549,6 +549,18 @@ impl<T> Channel<T> { let mut head = self.head.index.load(Ordering::Acquire); let mut block = self.head.block.load(Ordering::Acquire); + // If we're going to be dropping messages we need to synchronize with initialization + if head >> SHIFT != tail >> SHIFT { + // The block can be null here only if a sender is in the process of initializing the + // channel while another sender managed to send a message by inserting it into the + // semi-initialized channel and advanced the tail. + // In that case, just wait until it gets initialized. + while block.is_null() { + backoff.spin_heavy(); + block = self.head.block.load(Ordering::Acquire); + } + } + unsafe { // Drop all messages between head and tail and deallocate the heap-allocated blocks. while head >> SHIFT != tail >> SHIFT { |
