public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ammar Faizi <[email protected]>
To: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <[email protected]>
Cc: Ammar Faizi <[email protected]>,
	Irvan Malik Azantha <[email protected]>,
	GNU/Weeb Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Fix undefined behavior in the C++ mutex implementation
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 02:40:19 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:28:07 +0000, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan wrote:
> The current C++ mutex implementation is undefined behavior, specifically
> in the cond_wait() function because std::unique_lock<std::mutex> is
> constructed with std::defer_lock while the same thread has acquired the
> lock. Also, right after that defer_lock, std::condition_variable calls
> wait() with a unique lock, not in a locked state.
> 
> In such a situation, the correct construction is using std::adopt_lock.
> However, using std::adopt_lock leads to another issue. The issue is the
> lock will be released upon return in the cond_wait(). To solve the
> problem, introduce a new helper function, __cond_wait() which will
> release the lock with std::adopt_lock and then call it from cond_wait().
> The cond_wait() then acquires the lock again before it returns. The
> result is that we correctly fulfill the __must_hold() semantic while
> conforming to the C++ mutex implementation.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/3] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as the thread maintainer
      commit: 5be6c427164522be650985c93595615c4f5c00e2
[2/3] core/thread: Fix undefined behavior in the C++ mutex implementation
      commit: bd84193e908c455c7c0c7f94a914d46b75557815
[3/3] configure: Introduce `--cpp-thread` option
      commit: 45b140357906d810f023ed1735a2b6585f4a5dce

Best regards,
-- 
Ammar Faizi


      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-03-12 19:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-11 11:28 [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Fix undefined behavior in the C++ mutex implementation Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2023-03-11 11:28 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as the thread maintainer Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2023-03-11 11:28 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] core/thread: Fix undefined behavior in the C++ mutex implementation Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2023-03-11 11:28 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/3] configure: Introduce `--cpp-thread` option Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2023-03-12 19:40 ` Ammar Faizi [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=167864999174.1162888.14444030353924027192.b4-ty@gnuweeb.org \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox