[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3038?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
James E. King, III updated THRIFT-3038:
---------------------------------------
Description:
In the cpp library there are several member variables which are declared
volatile, I believe with the intention of providing some sort of thread-safety.
While volatile can be used in this way in Java and C#, in C++ it cannot! It
does not provide any guarantees with regard to instruction (re-)ordering, i.e.
there are no implied memory barriers like you would get by using explicit
locking or atomic variables.
This means that all uses of volatile should be examined, the volatile qualifier
should be removed and replaced by proper synchronization.
The affected member variables are:
# NoStarveReadWriteMutex::writerWaiting_
Unprotected read access in acquireRead(). Data race can be seen by running the
unit test with Helgrind.
# (already fixed) TFileTransport::forceFlush_
Always accessed while holding mutex_. In this case, the volatile can just be
removed.
# TFileTransport::closing_
Sometimes accessed while holding mutex_ (in combination with the notEmpty_
Monitor),
but, e.g., enqueueEvent reads closing_ without any synchronization.
# (already fixed) TThreadPoolServer::stop_, TThreadedServer::stop_
Accessed (read and written) without synchronization. These would probably be
fine using an atomic data type. Or, use explicit locking or signaling.
# (already fixed) TThreadPoolServer::timeout_,
TThreadPoolServer::taskExpiration_
Should probably use a lock.
# Mutex.cpp has mutexProfilingCounter as static variable. This probably doesn’t
break anything, but still the volatile serves no real purpose.
While some of the fixes are probably simple, in general I think someone with
better knowledge of the code should have a look at this.
was:
In the cpp library there are several member variables which are declared
volatile, I believe with the intention of providing some sort of thread-safety.
While volatile can be used in this way in Java and C#, in C++ it cannot! It
does not provide any guarantees with regard to instruction (re-)ordering, i.e.
there are no implied memory barriers like you would get by using explicit
locking or atomic variables.
This means that all uses of volatile should be examined, the volatile qualifier
should be removed and replaced by proper synchronization.
The affected member variables are:
# NoStarveReadWriteMutex::writerWaiting_
Unprotected read access in acquireRead(). Data race can be seen by running the
unit test with Helgrind.
# TFileTransport::forceFlush_ (already fixed)
Always accessed while holding mutex_. In this case, the volatile can just be
removed.
# TFileTransport::closing_
Sometimes accessed while holding mutex_ (in combination with the notEmpty_
Monitor),
but, e.g., enqueueEvent reads closing_ without any synchronization.
# TThreadPoolServer::stop_, TThreadedServer::stop_ (already fixed)
Accessed (read and written) without synchronization. These would probably be
fine using an atomic data type. Or, use explicit locking or signaling.
# TThreadPoolServer::timeout_, TThreadPoolServer::taskExpiration_ (already
fixed)
Should probably use a lock.
# Mutex.cpp has mutexProfilingCounter as static variable. This probably doesn’t
break anything, but still the volatile serves no real purpose.
While some of the fixes are probably simple, in general I think someone with
better knowledge of the code should have a look at this.
> Use of volatile in cpp library
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-3038
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3038
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: C++ - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.9.2
> Reporter: Adriaan Schmidt
>
> In the cpp library there are several member variables which are declared
> volatile, I believe with the intention of providing some sort of
> thread-safety.
> While volatile can be used in this way in Java and C#, in C++ it cannot! It
> does not provide any guarantees with regard to instruction (re-)ordering,
> i.e. there are no implied memory barriers like you would get by using
> explicit locking or atomic variables.
> This means that all uses of volatile should be examined, the volatile
> qualifier should be removed and replaced by proper synchronization.
> The affected member variables are:
> # NoStarveReadWriteMutex::writerWaiting_
> Unprotected read access in acquireRead(). Data race can be seen by running
> the unit test with Helgrind.
> # (already fixed) TFileTransport::forceFlush_
> Always accessed while holding mutex_. In this case, the volatile can just be
> removed.
> # TFileTransport::closing_
> Sometimes accessed while holding mutex_ (in combination with the notEmpty_
> Monitor),
> but, e.g., enqueueEvent reads closing_ without any synchronization.
> # (already fixed) TThreadPoolServer::stop_, TThreadedServer::stop_
> Accessed (read and written) without synchronization. These would probably be
> fine using an atomic data type. Or, use explicit locking or signaling.
> # (already fixed) TThreadPoolServer::timeout_,
> TThreadPoolServer::taskExpiration_
> Should probably use a lock.
> # Mutex.cpp has mutexProfilingCounter as static variable. This probably
> doesn’t break anything, but still the volatile serves no real purpose.
> While some of the fixes are probably simple, in general I think someone with
> better knowledge of the code should have a look at this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
