Skip to content
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

chainlocks: Fix potential deadlock #3972

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 1, 2021

Conversation

UdjinM6
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 commented Jan 29, 2021

Should fix this:

Previous lock order was:
 pnode->cs_sendProcessing  net.cpp:2854
 cs_main  net_processing.cpp:3946 (TRY)
 mempool.cs  net_processing.cpp:4183
 (1) pto->cs_inventory  net_processing.cpp:4183
 pto->cs_filter  net_processing.cpp:4233
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:87
Current lock order is:
 cs_main  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 cs_vNodes  net.cpp:3662
 (1) cs_inventory  ./net.h:1085

Should fix this:
```
Previous lock order was:
 pnode->cs_sendProcessing  net.cpp:2854
 cs_main  net_processing.cpp:3946 (TRY)
 mempool.cs  net_processing.cpp:4183
 (1) pto->cs_inventory  net_processing.cpp:4183
 pto->cs_filter  net_processing.cpp:4233
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:87
Current lock order is:
 cs_main  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 cs_vNodes  net.cpp:3662
 (1) cs_inventory  ./net.h:1085
```
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 added this to the 17 milestone Jan 29, 2021
Copy link

@xdustinface xdustinface left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't we then also move InternalHasConflictingChainLock up into the other LOCK(cs) scope (without negative side effects?) like in 5b520c3?

@UdjinM6
Copy link
Author

UdjinM6 commented Jan 30, 2021

I guess 5b520c3 makes sense. Just not in this PR :)

Copy link

@xdustinface xdustinface left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

Copy link
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 7c5710f into dashpay:develop Feb 1, 2021
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 deleted the fix_cl_deadlock branch July 1, 2021 21:57
gades pushed a commit to cosanta/cosanta-core that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2022
Should fix this:
```
Previous lock order was:
 pnode->cs_sendProcessing  net.cpp:2854
 cs_main  net_processing.cpp:3946 (TRY)
 mempool.cs  net_processing.cpp:4183
 (1) pto->cs_inventory  net_processing.cpp:4183
 pto->cs_filter  net_processing.cpp:4233
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:87
Current lock order is:
 cs_main  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 (2) cs  llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp:138
 cs_vNodes  net.cpp:3662
 (1) cs_inventory  ./net.h:1085
```
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.

3 participants