Re: [PATCH 4/5] lock_file: make function-local locks non-static

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 05:24:05PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:

> >>>> -       static struct lock_file lock;
> >>>> +       struct lock_file lock = LOCK_INIT;
> >>>
> >>> Is it really safe to do this? I vaguely remember something about
> >>> (global) linked list and signal handling which could trigger any time
> >>> and probably at atexit() time too (i.e. die()). You don't want to
> >>> depend on stack-based variables in that case.
> >>
> >> So I dug in a bit more about this. The original implementation does
> >> not allow stack-based lock files at all in 415e96c8b7 ([PATCH]
> >> Implement git-checkout-cache -u to update stat information in the
> >> cache. - 2005-05-15). The situation has changed since 422a21c6a0
> >> (tempfile: remove deactivated list entries - 2017-09-05). At the end
> >> of that second commit, Jeff mentioned "We can clean them up
> >> individually" which I guess is what these patches do. Though I do not
> >> know if we need to make sure to call "release" function or something/
> >> Either way you need more explanation and assurance than just "we can
> >> drop their staticness" in the commit mesage.
> >
> > Thank you Duy for your comments. How about I write the commit message
> > like so:
> 
> +Jeff. Since he made it possible to remove lock file from the global
> linked list, he probably knows well what to check when switching from
> a static lock file to a stack-local one.

It should be totally safe. If you look at "struct lock_file", it is now
simply a pointer to a tempfile allocated on the heap (in fact, I thought
about getting rid of lock_file entirely, but the diff is noisy and it
actually has some value as an abstraction over a pure tempfile).

If you fail to call a release function, it will just hang around until
program exit, which is more or less what the static version would do.
The big difference is that if we re-enter the function while still
holding the lock, then the static version would BUG() on trying to use
the already-active lockfile. Whereas after this series, we'd try to
create a new lockfile and say "woah, somebody else is holding the lock".

> >   After 076aa2cbd (tempfile: auto-allocate tempfiles on heap, 2017-09-05),
> >   we can have lockfiles on the stack. These `struct lock_file`s are local
> >   to their respective functions and we can drop their staticness.
> >
> >   Each of these users either commits or rolls back the lock in every
> >   codepath, with these possible exceptions:
> >
> >     * We bail using a call to `die()` or `exit()`. The lock will be
> >       cleaned up automatically.
> >
> >     * We return early from a function `cmd_foo()` in builtin/, i.e., we
> >       are just about to exit. The lock will be cleaned up automatically.
> 
> There are also signals which can be caught and run on its own stack (I
> think) so whatever variable on the current stack should be safe, I
> guess.

Yes, the stack variables should all be intact during an exit or a
signal.

> >   If I have missed some codepath where we do not exit, yet leave a locked
> >   lock around, that was so also before this patch. If we would later
> >   re-enter the same function, then before this patch, we would be retaking
> >   a lock for the very same `struct lock_file`, which feels awkward, but to
> >   the best of my reading has well-defined behavior. Whereas after this
> >   patch, we would attempt to take the lock with a completely fresh `struct
> >   lock_file`. In both cases, the result would simply be that the lock can
> >   not be taken, which is a situation we already handle.
> 
> There is a difference here, if the lock is not released properly,
> previously the lockfile is still untouched. If it's on stack, it may
> be overwritten which can corrupt the linked list to get to the next
> lock file.  (and this is about calling the function in question just
> _once_ not the second time).

The only bits on the stack are just a pointer to the list item. So the
linked list is fine if it goes out of scope while the tempfile is still
active. That was the point of 076aa2cbd.

-Peff