From: David Gwynne Subject: Re: rpki-client: fix possible pthread deadlock on exit To: tech@openbsd.org Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:41:11 +1000 I agree with Philip, it should be safe to pthread_cond_signal or pthread_cond_broadcast without holding the mutex, just like it's safe (and often desirable) to call wakeup(9) in the kernel without the lock the waiting thread is sleeping on. On 22/07/2026 05:22, Philip Guenther wrote: > Hmm, as long as the Boolean being checked (quit?) is both checked and > changed with the mutex held, there should be no race. How did the hung > thread see quit not true before waiting but the signaling thread set > or see it as true before signaling?  Smells like quit is being set > outside the mutex… > > (Holding the mutex while signaling is fine of course, but feels like > it should have been held even earlier) > > Philip > > On Tuesday, July 21, 2026, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > The interaction between quit and the pthread_cond_broadcast calls > in the > exit path are not properly sequenced. Calling the cond_broadcast > without > holding its mutex can lead to a case where the broadcast is lost > and so > that thread would not wake up. The process would then hang forever in > pthread_join(). > > Grab the mutex before sending the pthread_cond_broadcast() fixes this > issue since now the receiver is either properly parked or it will > see that quit is true and exit before calling pthread_cond_wait(). > > Also do an early exit from the event loop if quit is true. There is > no need work through the full event loop in that case. > -- > :wq Claudio > > Index: parser.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/rpki-client/parser.c,v > diff -u -p -r1.182 parser.c > --- parser.c    26 Jun 2026 08:05:22 -0000      1.182 > +++ parser.c    9 Jul 2026 20:44:10 -0000 > @@ -1072,6 +1072,12 @@ parse_worker(void *arg) >                                 errx(1, "pthread_cond_wait: %s", >                                     strerror(error)); >                 } > +               if (quit) { > +                       if ((error = > pthread_mutex_unlock(&globalq_mtx)) != 0) > +                               errx(1, "pthread_mutex_unlock: %s", > +                                   strerror(error)); > +                       break; > +               } >                 n = 0; >                 while ((entp = TAILQ_FIRST(&globalq)) != NULL) { >                         TAILQ_REMOVE(&globalq, entp, entries); > @@ -1141,6 +1147,8 @@ parse_writer(void *arg) >                         if (error != 0) >                                 errx(1, "pthread_mutex_lock: %s", >                                     strerror(error)); > +                       if (quit) > +                               break; >                 } > >                 if (msgbuf_queuelen(myq) > 0) { > @@ -1279,13 +1287,19 @@ proc_parser(int fd, int nthreads) >         } > >         /* signal all threads */ > +       if ((error = pthread_mutex_lock(&globalq_mtx)) != 0) > +               errx(1, "pthread_mutex_lock: %s", strerror(error)); > +       if ((error = pthread_mutex_lock(&globalmsgq_mtx)) != 0) > +               errx(1, "pthread_mutex_lock: %s", strerror(error)); > + >         if ((error = pthread_cond_broadcast(&globalq_cond)) != 0) >                 errx(1, "pthread_cond_broadcast: %s", > strerror(error)); >         if ((error = pthread_cond_broadcast(&globalmsgq_cond)) != 0) >                 errx(1, "pthread_cond_broadcast: %s", > strerror(error)); > > -       if ((error = pthread_mutex_lock(&globalq_mtx)) != 0) > -               errx(1, "pthread_mutex_lock: %s", strerror(error)); > +       if ((error = pthread_mutex_unlock(&globalmsgq_mtx)) != 0) > +               errx(1, "pthread_mutex_unlock: %s", strerror(error)); > + >         while ((entp = TAILQ_FIRST(&globalq)) != NULL) { >                 TAILQ_REMOVE(&globalq, entp, entries); >                 entity_free(entp); >