no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== 2022-06-22 - TSAN bug ======
+while preparing [[:blog:2022:06:22:2022-06-22_-_logate_v1.1.1_is_out|release of latest LogATE]] version, i stumbled upon a bug in thread sanitizer. consider the following piece of code:
+<code cpp>
+#include <thread>
+#include <mutex>
+#include <condition_variable>
+int main()
+{
+  auto ready = false;
+  std::mutex m;
+  std::condition_variable cv;
+  std::thread th{ [&]{
+    // thread 1
+    std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
+#if 0
+    // OK!
+    cv.wait( lock, [&]{ return ready; } );
+#endif
+#if 0
+    // ERROR!
+    cv.wait_until( lock, std::chrono::steady_clock::now() + std::chrono::minutes{1}, [&]{ return ready; } );
+#endif
+#if 1
+    // ERROR!
+    cv.wait_for( lock, std::chrono::minutes{1}, [&]{ return ready; } );
+#endif
+  } };
+  {
+    // thread 2
+    std::this_thread::sleep_for( std::chrono::seconds{1} );  // we should be wait()ing here
+    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock{m};
+    ready = true;
+    cv.notify_one();
+  }
+  th.join();
+}
+</code>
+after compiling it with:
+  g++ -fsanitize=thread  -g3 -Wall -std=c++17 test.cpp -lpthread
+we can see a very colorful output, indicating double-locking and race condition!
+{{:blog:2022:06:22:tsan_report.png?900|TSAN's report with warnings}}
+the same issue is reported with both ''gcc'' and ''clang''. so the problem is in the code, right? well... no. the clue that the problem is elsewhere is when you change which version of ''wait()'' is selected: regular one works fine, while time-constrained versions (i.e. deadline and timeout) report issues as below. changing C++ library does not change the output, but changing a compiler version does help.
+here are the bugs i found already reported for this:
+  * {{https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101978|gcc bug report}}((''https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101978''))
+  * {{https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/1259|clang bug report}}((''https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/1259''))
+i've spent quite a bit of time today, trying to narrow down the issue and making it small and reproducible issue. then it turned out it's a know problem. life... ;)
+the problem has been observed on UTs. even though here it was false-positive, running automated tests with sanitizers is a really great thing to do. if you still do not do it -- i strongly encourage you to start doing so! :)

blog/2022/06/22/2022-06-22_-_tsan_bug.txt · Last modified: 2022/06/22 21:56 by basz

Back to top