From: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Cc: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:23:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5292325009aa674d78d114d85bdbce94c3aec909.1551291557.git-series.mac@mcrowe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.b0c66849a87ca79889a49f2f1f2563b1a8a15d8b.1551291557.git-series.mac@mcrowe.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.b0c66849a87ca79889a49f2f1f2563b1a8a15d8b.1551291557.git-series.mac@mcrowe.com>
As recommended by the comments in the implementations of
pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock and pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock, let's move the
timeout validity checks into the corresponding pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full
and pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full functions. Since these functions may be
called with abstime == NULL, an extra check for that is necessary too.
---
nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c | 10 ----------
nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c | 10 ----------
3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
index 89ba21a..120b880 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
@@ -282,6 +282,16 @@ __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
{
unsigned int r;
+ /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous
+ implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
+ would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
+ validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
+ immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */
+ if (abstime
+ && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
+ || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
+ return EINVAL;
+
/* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer. This is a deadlock
situation we recognize and report. */
if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer)
@@ -576,6 +586,16 @@ static __always_inline int
__pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
const struct timespec *abstime)
{
+ /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous
+ implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
+ would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
+ validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
+ immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */
+ if (abstime
+ && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
+ || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
+ return EINVAL;
+
/* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer. This is a deadlock
situation we recognize and report. */
if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer)
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c
index aa00530..84c1983 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c
@@ -23,15 +23,5 @@ int
pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
const struct timespec *abstime)
{
- /* Make sure the passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous
- implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
- would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
- validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
- immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */
- /* ??? Just move this to __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full? */
- if (__glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
- || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
- return EINVAL;
-
return __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full (rwlock, abstime);
}
diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c
index 3c92e44..f0b745d 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c
@@ -23,15 +23,5 @@ int
pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
const struct timespec *abstime)
{
- /* Make sure the passed in timeout value is valid. Note that the previous
- implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
- would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
- validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
- immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it). */
- /* ??? Just move this to __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full? */
- if (__glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
- || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
- return EINVAL;
-
return __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full (rwlock, abstime);
}
--
git-series 0.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-27 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-27 18:23 [PATCH 0/7] Implement proposed POSIX _clockwait variants of existing _timedwait functions Mike Crowe
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 1/7] nptl: Add clockid parameter to futex timed wait calls Mike Crowe
2019-03-05 12:39 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-10 8:59 ` Mike Crowe
2019-03-11 11:50 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 2/7] nptl: Add POSIX-proposed sem_clockwait Mike Crowe
2019-02-27 18:35 ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-05 13:31 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-10 16:17 ` Mike Crowe
2019-03-19 17:07 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-14 14:09 ` Yann Droneaud
2019-03-14 14:39 ` Mike Crowe
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 3/7] nptl: Add POSIX-proposed pthread_cond_clockwait Mike Crowe
2019-03-05 16:45 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-05-04 20:22 ` Mike Crowe
2019-02-27 18:23 ` Mike Crowe [this message]
2019-03-05 16:48 ` [PATCH 4/7] nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions Adhemerval Zanella
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 5/7] nptl/tst-rwlock14: Test pthread/rwlock_timedwrlock correctly Mike Crowe
2019-03-05 17:36 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 6/7] nptl/tst-rwlock: Use clock_gettime/timespec rather than gettimeofday/timeval Mike Crowe
2019-03-05 18:02 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-20 21:34 ` Mike Crowe
2019-03-14 14:44 ` Yann Droneaud
2019-02-27 18:23 ` [PATCH 7/7] nptl: Add POSIX-proposed pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock & pthread_rwlock_clockwrlock Mike Crowe
2019-03-07 12:59 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-05 12:35 ` [PATCH 0/7] Implement proposed POSIX _clockwait variants of existing _timedwait functions Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-06 21:15 ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-10 9:12 ` Mike Crowe
2019-03-11 23:13 ` Joseph Myers
2019-03-13 21:42 ` Mike Crowe
2019-03-14 11:30 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-03-15 13:25 ` Yann Droneaud
2019-03-15 13:36 ` Mike Crowe
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
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5292325009aa674d78d114d85bdbce94c3aec909.1551291557.git-series.mac@mcrowe.com \
--to=mac@mcrowe.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).