In the current world order, each socket has two mutexes: a mutex
that protects socket and receive socket buffer state, and a second mutex to protect send socket buffer state. In some places, the mutex shared between the socket and receive socket buffer will be acquired twice, once by each layer, resulting in some inconsistency, but providing the abstraction benefit of being able to more easily separate the two mutexes in the future if desired. When transitioning a socket to the SS_ISDISCONNECTING or SS_ISDISCONNECTED states, grab the socket/receive socket buffer lock once rather than grabbing it as the socket lock, modifying socket state, then grabbing a second time as the receive lock in order to modify the socket buffer state to indicate no further data can be read. This change is believed to close a race between the change in socket state and the change in socket buffer state, which for a remotely initiated close on a UNIX domain socket, resulted in soreceive() returning ENOTCONN rather than an EOF condition. A similar race still exists in the case of send, however, and is harder to fix as the socket and send socket buffer mutexes are not the same, and we would like to avoid holding combinations of socket mutexes over sb_upcall until we've finished clarifying the locking protocol for upcalls. This change has the side affect of reducing the number of mutex operations to initiate disconnect or perform disconnect on a socket by two. PR: 78824 Rerported by: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> MFC after: 2 weeks
This commit is contained in:
parent
775b68b897
commit
fb87c758d3
@ -159,15 +159,12 @@ soisdisconnecting(so)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code separately acquires SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) even though they are the same mutex to
|
||||
* avoid introducing the assumption that they are the same.
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code assumes that SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) are the same.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
SOCK_LOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_state &= ~SS_ISCONNECTING;
|
||||
so->so_state |= SS_ISDISCONNECTING;
|
||||
SOCK_UNLOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_rcv.sb_state |= SBS_CANTRCVMORE;
|
||||
sorwakeup_locked(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_snd);
|
||||
@ -182,16 +179,12 @@ soisdisconnected(so)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code separately acquires SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) even though they are the same mutex to
|
||||
* avoid introducing the assumption that they are the same.
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code assumes that SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) are the same.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
/* XXXRW: so_state locking? */
|
||||
SOCK_LOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_state &= ~(SS_ISCONNECTING|SS_ISCONNECTED|SS_ISDISCONNECTING);
|
||||
so->so_state |= SS_ISDISCONNECTED;
|
||||
SOCK_UNLOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_rcv.sb_state |= SBS_CANTRCVMORE;
|
||||
sorwakeup_locked(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_snd);
|
||||
|
@ -159,15 +159,12 @@ soisdisconnecting(so)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code separately acquires SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) even though they are the same mutex to
|
||||
* avoid introducing the assumption that they are the same.
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code assumes that SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) are the same.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
SOCK_LOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_state &= ~SS_ISCONNECTING;
|
||||
so->so_state |= SS_ISDISCONNECTING;
|
||||
SOCK_UNLOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_rcv.sb_state |= SBS_CANTRCVMORE;
|
||||
sorwakeup_locked(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_snd);
|
||||
@ -182,16 +179,12 @@ soisdisconnected(so)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code separately acquires SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) even though they are the same mutex to
|
||||
* avoid introducing the assumption that they are the same.
|
||||
* XXXRW: This code assumes that SOCK_LOCK(so) and
|
||||
* SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv) are the same.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
/* XXXRW: so_state locking? */
|
||||
SOCK_LOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_state &= ~(SS_ISCONNECTING|SS_ISCONNECTED|SS_ISDISCONNECTING);
|
||||
so->so_state |= SS_ISDISCONNECTED;
|
||||
SOCK_UNLOCK(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_rcv);
|
||||
so->so_rcv.sb_state |= SBS_CANTRCVMORE;
|
||||
sorwakeup_locked(so);
|
||||
SOCKBUF_LOCK(&so->so_snd);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user