-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
Stop relying on UB in 'IContextCallback' dispatch logic #1865
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Nit: The potential undefined behavior that this is fixing does not fit the definition of GC hole (https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/coding-guidelines/clr-code-guide.md#211-how-gc-holes-are-created). |
} | ||
|
||
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)] | ||
public static CallbackData GetOrCreate() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure that there cannot ever be recursion that would cause multiple recursive uses of CallbackData on the same thread?
Calls between STA apartments always come with a lot of surprises and corner-case bugs...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Applied the suggested changes and also left some notes about reentrancy. I talked with @manodasanW as well and in this scenario this should be fine. We're only ever doing this context switch to release an object reference on its original context, and nothing else. There is no way that should/could then somehow switch back to this starting thread (it wouldn't even know which one that was) to then try to schedule another context callback recursively. So this should be fine. Also in ASTA scenarios this would also just be flat out impossible by construction (because ASTA blocks reentrant calls into it, so even if hypothetically we somehow ended up there, that second context callback would just throw before being scheduled). But then again either case should just never happen. Definitely a good point though and worth writing some additional comments about this, thank you! 😄
|
||
// We use a thread local static field to efficiently store the state that's used by the callback. Note that this | ||
// is safe with respect to reentrancy, as the target callback will never try to switch back on the original thread. | ||
// We're only ever switching once on the original context, only to release the object reference that is passed as |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Release can run arbitrary code, is that right? I do not see what guarantees that the arbitrary code cannot switch threads at will.
Also, this seems to be used for more than just releasing the object reference:
CsWinRT/src/WinRT.Runtime/ObjectReference.cs
Lines 751 to 760 in 93482af
Context.CallInContext( | |
_contextCallbackPtr, | |
_contextToken, | |
#if NET && CsWinRT_LANG_11_FEATURES | |
&InitAgileReference, | |
#else | |
InitAgileReference, | |
#endif | |
null, | |
this); |
It would be more correct by construction to implement this as usual pool - clear the cached instance when it is rented, so that there is no way for one instance to be rented multiple times at the same time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would have assumed that IContextCallback::ContextCallback
with ICallbackWithNoReentrancyToApplicationSTA
means it shouldn't be able to run any arbitrary code on this thread as a result of that call (I'm not familiar with these APIs though, so I don't actually know), and nothing else from when we set the field to when we clear it seems problematic. If that thing doesn't guarantee this however, then something should be done to allow multiple current things at once potentially existing (e.g., using a List<object>
or similar (probably manually via array for resizing purposes) would do the job).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or do you mean the callback might call back into this thread & somehow end up back here? That would make sense I suppose. Is that possible @Sergio0694? Actually, I think in this case it would still be fine, as long as the callback is called before anything else silly happens, since it immediately reads the field & thus wouldn't get the new field value (assuming appropriate barrier or whatever - for which a volatile read would certainly be enough, but probably none is "needed"); then it would just be set to null
twice, but the meaningful value of the field would already be read & that version would have already been read & had the correct value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"as long as the callback is called before anything else silly happens, since it immediately reads the field
That's actually a good point. Even if we somehow recursively ended up here (which I don't believe is possible), each callback would've already read the target state before invoking the user-provided callback anyway.
"Release can run arbitrary code"
Not really, I mean yes from the point of view of this API, but the context callback is only ever used internally to release IObjectReference
objects, which are implemented in CsWinRT only. And we're only ever using these to pass the Release
pointers which simply do a release on the tracker ref and the native object on the target context:
CsWinRT/src/WinRT.Runtime/ObjectReference.cs
Lines 955 to 967 in 93482af
static void Release(object state) | |
{ | |
ObjectReferenceWithContext<T> @this = Unsafe.As<ObjectReferenceWithContext<T>>(state); | |
@this.ReleaseFromBase(); | |
} | |
static void ReleaseWithoutContext(object state) | |
{ | |
ObjectReferenceWithContext<T> @this = Unsafe.As<ObjectReferenceWithContext<T>>(state); | |
@this.ReleaseWithoutContext(); | |
} |
5af3fc4
to
7dd4c5d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks fine now (assuming we don't need volatile read in the callback), assuming it's not possible to come back into ContextCallback
while another one is executing on the same thread.
See https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md#cross-thread-access-to-local-variables. This PR fixes accessing the callback state (which is a managed object) from the native callback invoked on the target thread.