f0d487dce5
Receiver disconnection relies on the incorrect assumption that `head.index != tail.index` implies that the channel is initialized (i.e `head.block` and `tail.block` point to allocated blocks). However, it can happen that `head.index != tail.index` and `head.block == null` at the same time which leads to a segfault when a channel is dropped in that state. This can happen because initialization is performed in two steps. First, the tail block is allocated and the `tail.block` is set. If that is successful `head.block` is set to the same pointer. Importantly, initialization is skipped if `tail.block` is not null. Therefore we can have the following situation: 1. Thread A starts to send the first value of the channel, observes that `tail.block` is null and begins initialization. It sets `tail.block` to point to a newly allocated block and then gets preempted. `head.block` is still null at this point. 2. Thread B starts to send the second value of the channel, observes that `tail.block` *is not* null and proceeds with writing its value in the allocated tail block and sets `tail.index` to 1. 3. Thread B drops the receiver of the channel which observes that `head.index != tail.index` (0 and 1 respectively), therefore there must be messages to drop. It starts traversing the linked list from `head.block` which is still a null pointer, leading to a segfault. This PR fixes this problem by waiting for initialization to complete when `head.index != tail.index` and the `head.block` is still null. A similar check exists in `start_recv` for similar reasons. Fixes #110001 Signed-off-by: Petros Angelatos <petrosagg@gmail.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| alloc | ||
| backtrace@07872f28cd | ||
| core | ||
| panic_abort | ||
| panic_unwind | ||
| portable-simd | ||
| proc_macro | ||
| profiler_builtins | ||
| rtstartup | ||
| rustc-std-workspace-alloc | ||
| rustc-std-workspace-core | ||
| rustc-std-workspace-std | ||
| std | ||
| stdarch@b655243782 | ||
| test | ||
| unwind | ||