1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1R0zvs-0004cx-PU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:59:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R0zvr-0000SA-Pw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:59:36 +0000
Received: by fxg11 with SMTP id 11so29127fxg.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.47.156 with SMTP id n28mr126798faf.7.1315331969478; Tue,
06 Sep 2011 10:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.22.130 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjy1FANzv5N7P4kx0Djqz-P2XbqQAFTxnK-MVu8erja+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1juB-0hr9NW=PoO5eh_Aqhzkiv3tnXTSTsjBKiy4y0JA@mail.gmail.com>
<20110904115926.GA16476@ulyssis.org>
<CAPg+sBjy1FANzv5N7P4kx0Djqz-P2XbqQAFTxnK-MVu8erja+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:59:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3kV884bc-f9SVBGPixMOi6fEwo4do8gixTBTK-szFS1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1R0zvr-0000SA-Pw
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4rc1 known bugs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:59:36 -0000
Nice work, Detective Wuille!
Patch for the deadlock issue:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/500
I took a different approach to fix from the one Pieter suggested,
performing the database operation after the cs_mapaddresses deadlock
is released. Please review to check my logic, it did survive my
start/stop/restart... stress test.
And I did review every place in the code that starts a database
transaction, to look for similar issues, and they are all OK.
RE: improving DEBUG_LOCKORDER: requires some thought. Deadlocks are
still possible with TRY_CRITICAL_SECTION, if some codepaths TRY and
some don't.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Pieter Wuille
<pieter.wuille@cs.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> My mistake: these are not actual potential deadlocks, as all locking
> of cs_vRecv/cs_vSend
> happens inside TRY_CRITICAL_SECTION blocks. Gavin, maybe you can add the rule to
> your debug code that ignores critical sections which are only locked
> through TRY_...?
>
>>> + sipa found what looks like a deadlock between the addr-handling and
>>> IRC-join-handling code.
>
> Regarding the actual deadlock between IRC seeding and AddAddress:
>
> Internally, DB also uses pthreads to implement the txn_begin()/commit() scheme,
> though I'm not sure with which granularity. These need to be taken into account
> when searching for deadlocks, but are obviously not detected by
> DEBUG_LOCKORDER.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
