Re: [PATCH] tmp-objdir: do not opendir() when handling a signal
- From
John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 27, 2022, 13:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1B4D6262-532A-401E-B1A2-709BEECA4B67@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <YzLiI1HZeBszsIJq@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Hey Peff,
On 27 Sep 2022, at 7:44, Jeff King wrote:
Show 55 quoted lines
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:53:03PM +0000, John Cai via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> One place we call tmp_objdir_create() is in git-receive-pack, where >> we create a temporary quarantine directory "incoming". Incoming >> objects will be written to this directory before they get moved to >> the object directory. >> >> We have observed this code leading to a deadlock: >> >> Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f621ba0b200 (LWP 326305)): >> #0 __lll_lock_wait_private (futex=futex@entry=0x7f621bbf8b80 >> <main_arena>) at ./lowlevellock.c:35 >> #1 0x00007f621baa635b in __GI___libc_malloc >> (bytes=bytes@entry=32816) at malloc.c:3064 >> #2 0x00007f621bae9f49 in __alloc_dir (statp=0x7fff2ea7ed60, >> flags=0, close_fd=true, fd=5) >> at ../sysdeps/posix/opendir.c:118 >> #3 opendir_tail (fd=5) at ../sysdeps/posix/opendir.c:69 >> #4 __opendir (name=<optimized out>) >> at ../sysdeps/posix/opendir.c:92 >> #5 0x0000557c19c77de1 in remove_dir_recurse () >> #6 0x0000557c19d81a4f in remove_tmp_objdir_on_signal () >> #7 <signal handler called> > > Yuck. Your analysis looks right, and certainly opendir() can't really > work without allocating memory for the pointer-to-DIR. > >> To prevent this, add a flag REMOVE_DIR_SIGNAL that allows >> remove_dir_recurse() to know that a signal is being handled and avoid >> calling opendir(3). One implication of this change is that when >> signal handling, the temporary directory may not get cleaned up >> properly. > > It's not really "may not" here, is it? It will never get cleaned up on a > signal now. I don't think remove_dir_recursively() will try to rmdir() > in this case. But even if it did, we'll always have a "pack" > subdirectory (minus the small race before we've created it). > > That's unfortunate, but I don't think we really have a portable > alternative. We can't keep an exact list of files to be deleted, because > some of them will be created by sub-processes. We could perhaps exec a > helper that does the deletion, but that seems like a race and > portability nightmare. On Linux, we could probably use open() and > getdents64() to traverse, but obviously that won't work everywhere. It > _might_ be worth having some kind of compat/ wrapper here, to let > supported systems do as good a job as they can. But it's not like there > aren't already cases where we might leave the tmp-objdir directory > around (say, SIGKILL), so this is really just extending the existing > problem to more signals. > > I was going to suggest we should do a better job of cleaning up these > directories via git-gc. But it looks like b3cecf49ea (tmp-objdir: new > API for creating temporary writable databases, 2021-12-06) changed the > default name such that a regular git-gc should do so. So I think we're > covered there.
I was wondering about this as well. Thanks for checking on this--that's reassuring.
Show 50 quoted lines
>
> The main case we care about is normal exit when index-pack or a hook
> sees an error, in which case we should still be cleaning up via the
> atexit() handler.
>
> So I think your patch is going in the right direction, but...
>
>> static int remove_dir_recurse(struct strbuf *path, int flag, int *kept_up)
>> {
>> - DIR *dir;
>> + DIR *dir = NULL;
>> struct dirent *e;
>> int ret = 0, original_len = path->len, len, kept_down = 0;
>> int only_empty = (flag & REMOVE_DIR_EMPTY_ONLY);
>> @@ -3261,7 +3261,10 @@ static int remove_dir_recurse(struct strbuf *path, int flag, int *kept_up)
>> }
>>
>> flag &= ~REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_TOPLEVEL;
>> - dir = opendir(path->buf);
>> +
>> + if ((flag & REMOVE_DIR_SIGNAL) == 0)
>> + dir = opendir(path->buf);
>> +
>> if (!dir) {
>> if (errno == ENOENT)
>> return keep_toplevel ? -1 : 0;
>
> We skip calling opendir() entirely, so "dir" will still be NULL. But we
> immediately start looking at errno, which will have some undefined value
> (based on some previous syscall).
>
> If we set "errno" to "EACCES" in this case, then we'd at least hit the
> rmdir() below:
>
> if (!dir) {
> if (errno == ENOENT)
> return keep_toplevel ? -1 : 0;
> else if (errno == EACCES && !keep_toplevel)
> /*
> * An empty dir could be removable even if it
> * is unreadable:
> */
> return rmdir(path->buf);
> else
> return -1;
> }
>
> but we know it won't really do anything for our proposed caller, since
> it will have files inside the directory that need to be removed before
> rmdir() can work.yeah, I suppose the only case it would help is if the directory is already empty.
Show 26 quoted lines
>
> Moreover, if you were to combine REMOVE_DIR_SIGNAL with
> REMOVE_DIR_KEEP_NESTED_GIT, I suspect that the call to
> resolve_gitlink_ref() would end up with similar deadlocks. Obviously
> nobody is proposing to do that, but it is a pitfall in the API.
>
> So all of that makes me think we should not add a new flag here, but
> instead just avoid calling the function entirely from
> tmp_objdir_destroy_1().
>
> But then we can observe that tmp_objdir_destroy_1() is basically doing
> nothing if on_signal is set. So there is really no point in setting up
> the signal handler at all. We should just set up the atexit() handler.
> I.e., something like:
>
> diff --git a/tmp-objdir.c b/tmp-objdir.c
> index a8be92bca1..10549e95db 100644
> --- a/tmp-objdir.c
> +++ b/tmp-objdir.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ struct tmp_objdir *tmp_objdir_create(const char *prefix)
> the_tmp_objdir = t;
> if (!installed_handlers) {
> atexit(remove_tmp_objdir);
> - sigchain_push_common(remove_tmp_objdir_on_signal);
> installed_handlers++;
> }This makes sense and is a clean solution. I guess the only case where we would benefit in calling into remove_tmp_objdir_on_signal() is if the temp dir exists but is empty. I'm not sure how often this would happen to make it worth it? Probably not...
Show 10 quoted lines
> > > with the commit message explaining that we can't do the cleanup in a > portable and signal-safe way, so we just punt on the whole concept. > > There's also some minor cleanup we could do elsewhere to drop the > "on_signal" argument (which can come as part of the same patch, or on > top). > > -Peff