GNU bug report logs -
#18222
24.3.92; fork handlers in gmalloc.c can lead to deadlock
Previous Next
Reported by: Ken Brown <kbrown <at> cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:11:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 24.3.92
Fixed in version 25.1
Done: Ken Brown <kbrown <at> cornell.edu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report
#18222: 24.3.92; fork handlers in gmalloc.c can lead to deadlock
which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 18222 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
18222: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=18222
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Version: 24.5
> Closing a bug doesn't prevent further discussion.
> (In my experience not closing it just means people tend to forget to do
> that later.)
OK. Closed.
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
malloc_enable_thread() in gmalloc.c calls pthread_atfork to set up fork
handlers. There are a couple of problems with this, but the immediate
reason for this bug report is a problem on Cygwin that was reported in
the thread starting at
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-07/msg00387.html
and continuing at
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00001.html.
The issue is that the 'prepare' fork handler locks the pthread_mutexes
prior to forking, and the ensuing processing of the fork command by the
Cygwin DLL leads to a call to malloc in the same thread, resulting in
deadlock. This is a long-standing problem, but it was masked until
recently by the fact that pthread_mutexes on Cygwin were ERRORCHECK
mutexes by default. As of Cygwin 1.7.31, pthread_mutexes are now NORMAL
mutexes by default, so the problem has shown up.
A simple short-term workaround would be to explicitly set the mutexes to
be ERRORCHECK or RECURSIVE mutexes on Cygwin, thereby restoring the
previous behavior. But this does not seem like the right long-term
solution, for the reasons explained here:
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00161.html
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-08/msg00175.html
I know nothing about this other than what I learned from the two
messages above, so I would appreciate some guidance.
Ken
This bug report was last modified 10 years and 231 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.