Skip to content

[VE] Revert mis-modifications from merge conflicts #49

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 9, 2021

Conversation

kaz7
Copy link
Collaborator

@kaz7 kaz7 commented Jul 9, 2021

Old days, LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp is modified by d5a79ec.
After that, this file is not correctly merged even the
modifications on d5a79ec is removed. This time, I've
synced LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp with upstream.

Pass regression tests.

Old days, LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp is modified by d5a79ec.
After that, this file is not correctly merged even the
modifications on d5a79ec is removed.  This time, I've
synced LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp with upstream.
@kaz7 kaz7 merged commit 2dcb720 into develop Jul 9, 2021
@kaz7 kaz7 deleted the feature/revert-LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp branch July 9, 2021 11:45
kaz7 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 22, 2023
…callback

The `TypeSystemMap::m_mutex` guards against concurrent modifications
of members of `TypeSystemMap`. In particular, `m_map`.

`TypeSystemMap::ForEach` iterates through the entire `m_map` calling
a user-specified callback for each entry. This is all done while
`m_mutex` is locked. However, there's nothing that guarantees that
the callback itself won't call back into `TypeSystemMap` APIs on the
same thread. This lead to double-locking `m_mutex`, which is undefined
behaviour. We've seen this cause a deadlock in the swift plugin with
following backtrace:

```

int main() {
    std::unique_ptr<int> up = std::make_unique<int>(5);

    volatile int val = *up;
    return val;
}

clang++ -std=c++2a -g -O1 main.cpp

./bin/lldb -o “br se -p return” -o run -o “v *up” -o “expr *up” -b
```

```
frame #4: std::lock_guard<std::mutex>::lock_guard
frame #5: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage <<<< Lock #2
frame #6: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::GetTypeSystemForLanguage
frame #7: lldb_private::Target::GetScratchTypeSystemForLanguage
...
frame #26: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadLibraryUsingPaths
frame #27: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #30: swift::ModuleDecl::collectLinkLibraries
frame #31: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::LoadModule
frame #34: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::GetCompileUnitImportsImpl
frame #35: lldb_private::SwiftASTContext::PerformCompileUnitImports
frame #36: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetSwiftASTContext
frame #37: lldb_private::TypeSystemSwiftTypeRefForExpressions::GetPersistentExpressionState
frame #38: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #41: lldb_private::TypeSystemMap::ForEach                 <<<< Lock #1
frame #42: lldb_private::Target::GetPersistentSymbol
frame #43: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindInUserDefinedSymbols
frame #44: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::FindSymbol
frame #45: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::GetSymbolAddressAndPresence
frame #46: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #47: non-virtual thunk to lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::MemoryManager::findSymbol
frame #48: llvm::LinkingSymbolResolver::findSymbol
frame #49: llvm::LegacyJITSymbolResolver::lookup
frame #50: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveExternalSymbols
frame #51: llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::resolveRelocations
frame #52: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeLoadedModules
frame #53: llvm::MCJIT::finalizeObject
frame #54: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::ReportAllocations
frame #55: lldb_private::IRExecutionUnit::GetRunnableInfo
frame #56: lldb_private::ClangExpressionParser::PrepareForExecution
frame #57: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::TryParse
frame #58: lldb_private::ClangUserExpression::Parse
```

Our solution is to simply iterate over a local copy of `m_map`.

**Testing**

* Confirmed on manual reproducer (would reproduce 100% of the time
  before the patch)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149949
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant