diff mbox series

[v2] libstdc++: Do not use pthread_mutex_clocklock with ThreadSanitizer

Message ID CACb0b4n6MiTz2iV5Ef9HoupLdub65_A8MbY_1dmg+7sLKOOKCQ@mail.gmail.com
State Accepted
Headers
Series [v2] libstdc++: Do not use pthread_mutex_clocklock with ThreadSanitizer |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check success Github commit url

Commit Message

Jonathan Wakely May 11, 2023, 8:52 p.m. UTC 
  On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
>
>> However, ...
>>
>> > > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>> > > index 89e7f5f5f45..e2700b05ec3 100644
>> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>> > > @@ -4284,7 +4284,7 @@
>> AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT], [
>> > >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT=no])
>> > >    ])
>> > >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT = yes; then
>> > > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT, 1, [Define if
>> > > pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
>> > > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT,
>> (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
>> > > [Define if pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
>> > >    fi
>>
>> TSan does appear to have an interceptor for pthread_cond_clockwait, even
>> if
>> it lacks the others. Does this mean that this part is unnecessary?
>>
>
> Ah good point, thanks. I grepped for clocklock but not clockwait.
>

In fact it seems like we don't need to change
_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_CLOCKLOCK either, because I don't get any tsan
warnings for that. It doesn't have interceptors for
pthread_rwlock_{rd,wr}lock, but it doesn't complain anyway (maybe it's
simply not instrumenting the rwlock functions at all?!)

So I'm now retesting with this version of the patch, which only touches the
USE_PTHREAD_LOCKLOCK macro.

Please take another look, thanks.
commit 4fc14825c125eece32980df21d09da35e3d5bac6
Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue May 9 09:30:48 2023

    libstdc++: Do not use pthread_mutex_clocklock with ThreadSanitizer
    
    As noted in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62623 there are
    no tsan interceptors for some of the new POSIX-1:202x APIs added by
    https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1216 so tsan gives false
    positive warnings for try_lock_for on timed mutexes.
    
    Disable the uses of the new pthread_mutex_clocklock API when tsan is
    active. This changes the semantics of the try_lock_for functions,
    because it can change which clock is used for the wait. This means those
    functions might be affected by system clock adjustments when tsan is
    used, when they would not be affected otherwise.
    
    libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
    
            * acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK): Define
            _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK in terms of _GLIBCXX_TSAN.
            * configure: Regenerate.

Comments

Mike Crowe May 12, 2023, 10:30 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Thursday 11 May 2023 at 21:52:22 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> However, ...
> >>
> >> > > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> >> > > index 89e7f5f5f45..e2700b05ec3 100644
> >> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> >> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> >> > > @@ -4284,7 +4284,7 @@
> >> AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT], [
> >> > >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT=no])
> >> > >    ])
> >> > >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT = yes; then
> >> > > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT, 1, [Define if
> >> > > pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> >> > > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT,
> >> (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
> >> > > [Define if pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> >> > >    fi
> >>
> >> TSan does appear to have an interceptor for pthread_cond_clockwait, even
> >> if
> >> it lacks the others. Does this mean that this part is unnecessary?
> >>
> >
> > Ah good point, thanks. I grepped for clocklock but not clockwait.
> >
> 
> In fact it seems like we don't need to change
> _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_CLOCKLOCK either, because I don't get any tsan
> warnings for that. It doesn't have interceptors for
> pthread_rwlock_{rd,wr}lock, but it doesn't complain anyway (maybe it's
> simply not instrumenting the rwlock functions at all?!)

It looks like TSan does have interceptors for pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock
etc. I can't explain why this doesn't cause problems when libstdc++ uses
pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock etc.

> So I'm now retesting with this version of the patch, which only touches the
> USE_PTHREAD_LOCKLOCK macro.
> 
> Please take another look, thanks.

> commit 4fc14825c125eece32980df21d09da35e3d5bac6
> Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
> Date:   Tue May 9 09:30:48 2023
> 
>     libstdc++: Do not use pthread_mutex_clocklock with ThreadSanitizer
>     
>     As noted in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62623 there are
>     no tsan interceptors for some of the new POSIX-1:202x APIs added by
>     https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1216 so tsan gives false
>     positive warnings for try_lock_for on timed mutexes.
>     
>     Disable the uses of the new pthread_mutex_clocklock API when tsan is
>     active. This changes the semantics of the try_lock_for functions,
>     because it can change which clock is used for the wait. This means those
>     functions might be affected by system clock adjustments when tsan is
>     used, when they would not be affected otherwise.
>     
>     libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>     
>             * acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK): Define
>             _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK in terms of _GLIBCXX_TSAN.
>             * configure: Regenerate.
> 
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> index 89e7f5f5f45..dce3d16aa5c 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> @@ -4314,7 +4314,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK], [
>        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK=no])
>    ])
>    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK = yes; then
> -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, 1, [Define if pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
> +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0), [Define if pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
>    fi
>  
>    CXXFLAGS="$ac_save_CXXFLAGS"

LGTM.

Mike.
Jonathan Wakely May 12, 2023, 10:32 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 11:30, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 11 May 2023 at 21:52:22 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> However, ...
> > >>
> > >> > > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > >> > > index 89e7f5f5f45..e2700b05ec3 100644
> > >> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > >> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > >> > > @@ -4284,7 +4284,7 @@
> > >> AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT], [
> > >> > >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT=no])
> > >> > >    ])
> > >> > >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT = yes; then
> > >> > > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT, 1, [Define if
> > >> > > pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> > >> > > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT,
> > >> (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
> > >> > > [Define if pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> > >> > >    fi
> > >>
> > >> TSan does appear to have an interceptor for pthread_cond_clockwait,
> even
> > >> if
> > >> it lacks the others. Does this mean that this part is unnecessary?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah good point, thanks. I grepped for clocklock but not clockwait.
> > >
> >
> > In fact it seems like we don't need to change
> > _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_CLOCKLOCK either, because I don't get any
> tsan
> > warnings for that. It doesn't have interceptors for
> > pthread_rwlock_{rd,wr}lock, but it doesn't complain anyway (maybe it's
> > simply not instrumenting the rwlock functions at all?!)
>
> It looks like TSan does have interceptors for pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock
> etc. I can't explain why this doesn't cause problems when libstdc++ uses
> pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock etc.
>

I think glibc has renamed the rwlock functions, and so the interceptors no
longer work.

# ifdef __USE_XOPEN2K
/* Try to acquire read lock for RWLOCK or return after specfied time.  */
#  ifndef __USE_TIME_BITS64
extern int pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock (pthread_rwlock_t *__restrict
__rwlock,
      const struct timespec *__restrict
      __abstime) __THROWNL __nonnull ((1, 2));
#  else
#   ifdef __REDIRECT_NTHNL
extern int __REDIRECT_NTHNL (pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock,
                             (pthread_rwlock_t *__restrict __rwlock,
                              const struct timespec *__restrict __abstime),
                             __pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64)
    __nonnull ((1, 2));
#   else
#    define pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock __pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64
#   endif
#  endif
# endif

If glibc is really providing a function called
__pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64 then will tsan be able to intercept that?



> > So I'm now retesting with this version of the patch, which only touches
> the
> > USE_PTHREAD_LOCKLOCK macro.
> >
> > Please take another look, thanks.
>
> > commit 4fc14825c125eece32980df21d09da35e3d5bac6
> > Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
> > Date:   Tue May 9 09:30:48 2023
> >
> >     libstdc++: Do not use pthread_mutex_clocklock with ThreadSanitizer
> >
> >     As noted in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62623 there
> are
> >     no tsan interceptors for some of the new POSIX-1:202x APIs added by
> >     https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1216 so tsan gives false
> >     positive warnings for try_lock_for on timed mutexes.
> >
> >     Disable the uses of the new pthread_mutex_clocklock API when tsan is
> >     active. This changes the semantics of the try_lock_for functions,
> >     because it can change which clock is used for the wait. This means
> those
> >     functions might be affected by system clock adjustments when tsan is
> >     used, when they would not be affected otherwise.
> >
> >     libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
> >
> >             * acinclude.m4 (GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK):
> Define
> >             _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK in terms of
> _GLIBCXX_TSAN.
> >             * configure: Regenerate.
> >
> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > index 89e7f5f5f45..dce3d16aa5c 100644
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > @@ -4314,7 +4314,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK], [
> >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK=no])
> >    ])
> >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK = yes; then
> > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, 1, [Define if
> pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
> > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
> [Define if pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
> >    fi
> >
> >    CXXFLAGS="$ac_save_CXXFLAGS"
>
> LGTM.
>
> Mike.
>
>
Mike Crowe May 15, 2023, 12:03 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Friday 12 May 2023 at 11:32:56 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 11:30, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 May 2023 at 21:52:22 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
> > > >> However, ...
> > > >>
> > > >> > > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > > >> > > index 89e7f5f5f45..e2700b05ec3 100644
> > > >> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > > >> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
> > > >> > > @@ -4284,7 +4284,7 @@
> > > >> AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT], [
> > > >> > >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT=no])
> > > >> > >    ])
> > > >> > >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT = yes; then
> > > >> > > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT, 1, [Define if
> > > >> > > pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> > > >> > > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT,
> > > >> (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
> > > >> > > [Define if pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
> > > >> > >    fi
> > > >>
> > > >> TSan does appear to have an interceptor for pthread_cond_clockwait,
> > even
> > > >> if
> > > >> it lacks the others. Does this mean that this part is unnecessary?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Ah good point, thanks. I grepped for clocklock but not clockwait.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In fact it seems like we don't need to change
> > > _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_CLOCKLOCK either, because I don't get any
> > tsan
> > > warnings for that. It doesn't have interceptors for
> > > pthread_rwlock_{rd,wr}lock, but it doesn't complain anyway (maybe it's
> > > simply not instrumenting the rwlock functions at all?!)
> >
> > It looks like TSan does have interceptors for pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock
> > etc. I can't explain why this doesn't cause problems when libstdc++ uses
> > pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock etc.
> >
> 
> I think glibc has renamed the rwlock functions, and so the interceptors no
> longer work.
> 
> # ifdef __USE_XOPEN2K
> /* Try to acquire read lock for RWLOCK or return after specfied time.  */
> #  ifndef __USE_TIME_BITS64
> extern int pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock (pthread_rwlock_t *__restrict
> __rwlock,
>       const struct timespec *__restrict
>       __abstime) __THROWNL __nonnull ((1, 2));
> #  else
> #   ifdef __REDIRECT_NTHNL
> extern int __REDIRECT_NTHNL (pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock,
>                              (pthread_rwlock_t *__restrict __rwlock,
>                               const struct timespec *__restrict __abstime),
>                              __pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64)
>     __nonnull ((1, 2));
> #   else
> #    define pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock __pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64
> #   endif
> #  endif
> # endif
> 
> If glibc is really providing a function called
> __pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock64 then will tsan be able to intercept that?

I'm by no means an expert, but I would guess not. I suspect that the
renaming was introduced as part of the Y2038 fixes and TSan hasn't caught
up with them either.

Mike.
Thomas Rodgers May 15, 2023, 7:58 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:42, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However, ...
>>>
>>> > > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>>> > > index 89e7f5f5f45..e2700b05ec3 100644
>>> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>>> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
>>> > > @@ -4284,7 +4284,7 @@
>>> AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT], [
>>> > >        [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT=no])
>>> > >    ])
>>> > >    if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT = yes; then
>>> > > -    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT, 1, [Define if
>>> > > pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
>>> > > +    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_COND_CLOCKWAIT,
>>> (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0),
>>> > > [Define if pthread_cond_clockwait is available in <pthread.h>.])
>>> > >    fi
>>>
>>> TSan does appear to have an interceptor for pthread_cond_clockwait, even
>>> if
>>> it lacks the others. Does this mean that this part is unnecessary?
>>>
>>
>> Ah good point, thanks. I grepped for clocklock but not clockwait.
>>
>
> In fact it seems like we don't need to change
> _GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_CLOCKLOCK either, because I don't get any tsan
> warnings for that. It doesn't have interceptors for
> pthread_rwlock_{rd,wr}lock, but it doesn't complain anyway (maybe it's
> simply not instrumenting the rwlock functions at all?!)
>
> So I'm now retesting with this version of the patch, which only touches
> the USE_PTHREAD_LOCKLOCK macro.
>
> Please take another look, thanks.
>
> LGTM.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
index 89e7f5f5f45..dce3d16aa5c 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
@@ -4314,7 +4314,7 @@  AC_DEFUN([GLIBCXX_CHECK_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK], [
       [glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK=no])
   ])
   if test $glibcxx_cv_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK = yes; then
-    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, 1, [Define if pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
+    AC_DEFINE(_GLIBCXX_USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX_CLOCKLOCK, (_GLIBCXX_TSAN==0), [Define if pthread_mutex_clocklock is available in <pthread.h>.])
   fi
 
   CXXFLAGS="$ac_save_CXXFLAGS"