Subject: bug#75322: SAFE_ALLOCA assumed to root Lisp_Objects/SSDATA(string)

From: Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:11:08 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> From: Gerd Möllmann <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: [email-masked],  [email-masked]
>> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 11:20:41 +0100
>> 
>> In callproc.c I found two: call_process and create_temp_file both use
>> SAFE_NALLOCA to store Lisp_Objects. I think these should be replaces
>> with SAVE_ALLOCA_LISP.
>
> What are the conditions under which placing Lisp objects into
> SAFE_NALLOCA is not safe?
>
> I understand that the first condition is that SAFE_NALLOCA uses
> xmalloc instead of alloca.

Right. If it doesn't use xmalloc, the references are on the C stack, and
both old and new GC handle that by scanning the C stack.

> But what are the other conditions?  Is one of them that GC could
> happen while these Lisp objects are in the memory allocated by
> SAFE_NALLOCA off the heap?  

Yes.

> IOW, if no GC happen, is that still unsafe? And if GC _can_ happen,
> but we don't use the allocated block again, is that a problem? For
> example, in this fragment:
>
> 	    SAFE_NALLOCA (args2, 1, nargs + 1);
> 	    args2[0] = Qcall_process;
> 	    for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++) args2[i + 1] = args[i];
> 	    coding_systems = Ffind_operation_coding_system (nargs + 1, args2);
> 	    val = CONSP (coding_systems) ? XCDR (coding_systems) : Qnil;
>
> Let's say Ffind_operation_coding_system could trigger GC.  But we
> never again use the args2[] array after Ffind_operation_coding_system
> returns.  Is the above still unsafe?  If so, could you tell what
> could MPS do during GC to make this unsafe?

Let me first say why I find this unsafe in the old GC, in principle. If
we don't assume anything about the objects referenced from args2, then a
reference in args2 may well be the only one to some object. In this
case, the old GC would sweep it. Or, the other way 'round, by using
SAFE_NALLOCA we make an assumption. And that, from my (GCPRO) POV, needs
a proof, or better yet some check in code.

Not using arg2 after Ffind_operation_coding_system above is not enough.
It would have to be not using args2 after the GC has run. Maybe that's
_in_ Ffind_operation_coding_system.

In the new GC, with MPS, the same is true as above. An object which is
only referenced from args2 may die.

Additionally, objects might not die but may move, assuming that
SAFE_NALLOCA does not create an ambiguous root. So, using SAFE_NALLOCA
makes another assumption in the MPS case: that something else prevents
the objects from moving. Another proof or check required with my GCPRO
hat on.

>
> Also, in some other message you said SAFE_NALLOCA is unsafe if
> _pointers_ to Lisp objects are placed in the memory SAFE_NALLOCA
> allocates off the heap.  In call_process I see that we only ever put
> Lisp objects into the memory allocated by SAFE_NALLOCA.  If that is
> unsafe, could you tell what MPS does during GC which makes this
> unsafe?

Not sure, is the question why in MPS both pointers and Lisp_Object count
as "references"?

If it's that, it's basically the same in the old GC. For example, when
marking the C stack, we must recognize both pointers to Lisp_Cons and
Lisp_Objects that look like conses, which contain such a pointer. Which
was the reason I had to add the mem_blocks, the red-black tree and so
on, to be able to determine if some potential pointer can indeed be
pointer to cons, conservatively.