This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Initialize IO_STATUS_BLOCK for pread, pwrite


Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Nov 28 00:03, Mark Geisert wrote:
Mark Geisert wrote:
---
 winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc b/winsup/cygwin/fhandler_disk_file.cc
index 5dfcae4d9..2ead9948c 100644
[...]

Oops, I neglected to include an explanatory comment. Issuing simultaneous
pwrite(s) on one file descriptor from multiple threads, as one might do in a
forthcoming POSIX aio implementation, sometimes results in garbage status in
the IO_STATUS_BLOCK on return from NtWriteFile(). Zeroing beforehand made
the issue go away.

This is mildly concerning to me because there are many other uses of
IO_STATUS_BLOCK in the Cygwin DLL that haven't seemed to have needed
initialization.

Puzzledly,

Ok, let's start with, why did you tweak pread if you only observed
a problem in pwrite?

Optimism? :-)  No, you're correct; I was getting ahead of myself.

                      In terms of pread, we already have a very recent
patch series:

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commitdiff;h=46702f92ea49
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commitdiff;h=c983aa48798d
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commitdiff;h=181fe5d2edac

In this case it turned out that the problem was related to hitting EOF.
I wonder if we hit a similar problem here.

Two points:

- Did you check the status code returned by NtWriteFile?  Not all non-0
  status codes fail the !NT_SUCCESS (status) test.

I did check the status code but don't recall what it was. The symptom I was seeing was outlandish io.Information values being returned by pwrite(). Far larger than the number requested in the call to pwrite() and NtWriteFile().


- Do you have a simple, self-contained testcase?

That would be difficult. I can supply an strace excerpt just showing the region of these simultaneous pwrite() calls, without this patch. If it's too large I'll put it somewhere and post a link (but I don't think it will be).

..mark


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]