From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix double-release of spinlock
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 10:46:09 -0700
Message-ID: <20240729174609.jbfei3sokdobeeeo@awork3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2803949.1722271519@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1sYSF2-001lEB-D1@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<2600757.1722267116@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20240729161846.kgiafbe2dtgabxgb@awork3.anarazel.de>
<2802449.1722270793@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20240729164026.yurg37tej34o76uk@awork3.anarazel.de>
<2803949.1722271519@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2024-07-29 12:45:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I dunno, is that the only extra check that the --disable-spinlocks
> >> implementation is providing?
>
> > I think it also provides the (valuable!) check that spinlocks were actually
> > initialized. But that again seems like something we'd be better off adding
> > more general infrastructure for - nobody runs --disable-spinlocks locally, we
> > shouldn't need to run this on the buildfarm to find problems like this.
>
> Hmm, but how?
I think there's a few ways:
> One of the things we gave up by nuking HPPA support
> was that that platform's representation of an initialized, free
> spinlock was not all-zeroes, so that it'd catch this type of problem.
> I think all the remaining platforms do use zeroes, so it's hard to
> see how anything short of valgrind would be likely to catch it.
1) There's nothing forcing us to use 0/1 for most of the spinlock
implementations. E.g. for x86-64 we could use 0 for uninitialized, 1 for free
and 2 for locked.
2) We could also change the layout of slock_t in assert enabled builds, adding
a dedicated 'initialized' field when assertions are enabled. But that might be
annoying from an ABI POV?
1) seems preferrable, so I gave it a quick try. Seems to work. There's a
*slight* difference in the instruction sequence:
old:
41f6: f0 86 10 lock xchg %dl,(%rax)
41f9: 84 d2 test %dl,%dl
41fb: 75 1b jne 4218 <GetRecoveryState+0x38>
new:
4216: f0 86 10 lock xchg %dl,(%rax)
4219: 80 fa 02 cmp $0x2,%dl
421c: 74 22 je 4240 <GetRecoveryState+0x40>
I.e. the version using 2 as the locked state uses a three byte instruction vs
a two byte instruction before.
*If* we are worried about this, we could
a) Change the representation only for assert enabled builds, but that'd have
ABI issues again.
b) Instead define the spinlock to have 1 as the unlocked state and 0 as the
locked state. That makes it a bit harder to understand that initialization
is missing, compared to a dedicated state, as the first use of the spinlock
just blocks.
To make 1) b) easier to understand it might be worth changing the slock_t
typedef to be something like
typedef struct slock_t
{
char is_free;
} slock_t;
which also might help catch some cases of type confusion - the char typedef is
too forgiving imo.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix double-release of spinlock
In-Reply-To: <20240729174609.jbfei3sokdobeeeo@awork3.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox