threads / patch / 45416

patchrun-command: fix segfault when cleaning forked async process

Subject: [PATCH] run-command: fix segfault when cleaning forked async process

## tl;dr

3 messages between Mar 17, 2017 and Mar 17, 2017. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Jeff King· Mar 17, 2017, 23:20 UTC · lore

Callers of the run-command API may mark a child as "clean_on_exit"; it gets added to a list and killed when the main process dies. Since commit 46df6906f (execv_dashed_external: wait for child on signal death, 2017-01-06), we respect an extra "wait_after_clean" flag, which we expect to find in the child_process struct.

When Git is built with NO_PTHREADS, we start "struct async" processes by forking rather than spawning a thread. The resulting processes get added to the cleanup list but they don't have a child_process struct, and the cleanup function ends up dereferencing NULL.

We should notice this case and assume that the processes do not need to be waited for (i.e., the same behavior they had before 46df6906f).

Reported-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
This is a regression in v2.12.0, though there is no hurry to get it into
v2.12.1 unless your grep patches go in, too. Without them you can't
actually build with NO_PTHREADS anyway.

However, applied directly on top of 46df6906f (which predates the build breakage), you can easily see the test failures with NO_PTHREADS and that this fixes them.

 run-command.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Show changes to run-command.c +1 −1
diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
index 5227f78ae..574b81d3e 100644
--- a/run-command.c
+++ b/run-command.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static void cleanup_children(int sig, int in_signal)
 
 		kill(p->pid, sig);
 
-		if (p->process->wait_after_clean) {
+		if (p->process && p->process->wait_after_clean) {
 			p->next = children_to_wait_for;
 			children_to_wait_for = p;
 		} else {
-- 
2.12.0.660.gf842b44fd
Jonathan Nieder· Mar 17, 2017, 23:42 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] run-command: fix segfault when cleaning forked async process

Jeff King wrote:
> Reported-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Thanks.
Brandon Williams· Mar 17, 2017, 23:38 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] run-command: fix segfault when cleaning forked async process

On 03/17, Jeff King wrote:
Show 44 quoted lines
> Callers of the run-command API may mark a child as
> "clean_on_exit"; it gets added to a list and killed when the
> main process dies.  Since commit 46df6906f
> (execv_dashed_external: wait for child on signal death,
> 2017-01-06), we respect an extra "wait_after_clean" flag,
> which we expect to find in the child_process struct.
> 
> When Git is built with NO_PTHREADS, we start "struct
> async" processes by forking rather than spawning a thread.
> The resulting processes get added to the cleanup list but
> they don't have a child_process struct, and the cleanup
> function ends up dereferencing NULL.
> 
> We should notice this case and assume that the processes do
> not need to be waited for (i.e., the same behavior they had
> before 46df6906f).
> 
> Reported-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> This is a regression in v2.12.0, though there is no hurry to get it into
> v2.12.1 unless your grep patches go in, too. Without them you can't
> actually build with NO_PTHREADS anyway.
> 
> However, applied directly on top of 46df6906f (which predates the build
> breakage), you can easily see the test failures with NO_PTHREADS and
> that this fixes them.
> 
>  run-command.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
> index 5227f78ae..574b81d3e 100644
> --- a/run-command.c
> +++ b/run-command.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static void cleanup_children(int sig, int in_signal)
>  
>  		kill(p->pid, sig);
>  
> -		if (p->process->wait_after_clean) {
> +		if (p->process && p->process->wait_after_clean) {
>  			p->next = children_to_wait_for;
>  			children_to_wait_for = p;
>  		} else {

Looks good to me! Thanks for tracking that down so quickly. I'm glad it was a quick fix.

-- 
Brandon Williams

← back to recent threads