[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a recursive lock prototype

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: a recursive lock prototype
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:33:22 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 08:57:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <brinkmd@master.debian.org> writes:
> > We agreed, in an inspiring coordinated coding effort, on the following
> > implementation (thanks to Johannes, Neal, Moshe and Rene):
> No, that still has a race condition as follows.  We begin in the fully
> unlocked state.
> THREAD 1                        THREAD 2
> Start recursive_lock
> Read RL->locking_thread
>                 Context Switch
>                                 Start recursive_lock, function finishes       
>                 Context Switch
> Check RL->locking_thread
>   it seems to match, and the lock
>   incorrectly succeeds.
> You need some kind of guard around this structure!

How can the check after the second context switch succeed?
Thread 2 will change the value from MACH_PORT_NULL to the port name
of it's thread port, neither matches the port name of thread 1.
So the evaluation of the if condition is a constant
(rl->locking_thread == thread)

I found it really weird that no guard is needed, but actually refcount
is guarded by the mutex, as are all writers of the locking_thread.
The only unguarded reader of that is the above if, and we considered 
all cases we could think of and came to the conclusion that it is robust.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]