Vine: Segfault Because Of Double Free

by ADMIN 38 views

Introduction

In this article, we will be discussing a segfault issue that occurred in the Vine system due to a double free error. The issue was encountered during testing of a specific branch and was caused by a combination of factors, including the use of a static variable to represent a resources struct and the potential for the returned pointer to be freed by other functions.

Background

The Vine system is a distributed computing platform that allows users to run tasks on a network of machines. The system is designed to be highly scalable and fault-tolerant, with features such as automatic task resubmission and resource management.

The Issue

The issue that we encountered was a segfault that occurred when a task was resubmitted after being forsaken by a worker. The task was resubmitted by the manager, which changed its state to READY and logged the related information in the vine_txn_log_write_task function. The manager then called the vine_manager_task_resources_min function to compute the minimum resources required for the task, followed by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category.

The Cause

The cause of the segfault was a double free error that occurred when the internal variable was freed by the rmsummary_delete function. The internal variable was a static variable that represented the resources struct, and it was used by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category.

The Problem

The problem with the use of the internal variable was that it was not properly synchronized, which led to a potential double free error. The returned pointer from the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions could be freed by other functions, which would cause a segfault when the rmsummary_delete function tried to free the pointer again.

The Solution

To solve this issue, we need to properly synchronize the use of the internal variable and ensure that it is not freed by multiple functions. One possible solution is to use a mutex to lock the internal variable while it is being accessed by multiple functions. This will prevent the double free error and ensure that the segfault is not triggered.

Code Review

The code that is responsible for the segfault is located in the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions. These functions use the internal variable to represent the resources struct and return a pointer to it. However, the returned pointer can be freed by other functions, which would cause a segfault when the rmsummary_delete function tries to free the pointer again.

// category_task_min_resources function
static struct resources *internal;

struct resources *category_task_min_resources() {
    // ...
    return &internal;
}

// category_task_max_resources function
struct resources *category_task_max_resources() {
    // ...
    return &internal;
}

// rmsummary_delete function
void rmsummary_delete(struct resources *resources) {
    // ...
    free(resources);
}

Debug Log

The debug log for this issue can be found here.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the segfault that occurred in the Vine system was caused by a double free error that occurred when the internal variable was freed by the rmsummary_delete function. The internal variable was a static variable that represented the resources struct, and it was used by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category. To solve this issue, we need to properly synchronize the use of the internal variable and ensure that it is not freed by multiple functions.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of this issue, we recommend the following:

  • Use a mutex to lock the internal variable while it is being accessed by multiple functions.
  • Ensure that the returned pointer from the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions is not freed by other functions.
  • Review the code that is responsible for the segfault and ensure that it is properly synchronized.

Future Work

In the future, we plan to review the code that is responsible for the segfault and ensure that it is properly synchronized. We will also use a mutex to lock the internal variable while it is being accessed by multiple functions. Additionally, we will ensure that the returned pointer from the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions is not freed by other functions.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Vine development team for their help and support in resolving this issue. We would also like to thank the open-source community for their contributions to the Vine system.

References

  • Vine system documentation
  • Category task min resources function
  • Category task max resources function
  • RMSummary delete function

Appendix

The following is a list of the tasks that were involved in the issue:

  • Task 3232: This task was the one that was resubmitted after being forsaken by a worker. It was the task that caused the segfault.

The following is a list of the functions that were involved in the issue:

  • Category task min resources function
  • Category task max resources function
  • RMSummary delete function

The following is a list of the variables that were involved in the issue:

  • Internal variable: This variable was a static variable that represented the resources struct. It was used by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category.

The following is a list of the logs that were involved in the issue:

  • Task 3232 log: This log showed the state changes of the task, including the initial state, ready state, running state, waiting retrieval state, and ready state again.

The following is a list of the debug logs that were involved in the issue:

  • Debug log: This log showed the debug information for the issue, including the stack trace and the variables that were involved in the issue.

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed a segfault issue that occurred in the Vine system due to a double free error. In this article, we will provide a Q&A section to answer some of the common questions that may arise from the issue.

Q: What is a double free error?

A: A double free error occurs when a block of memory is freed twice, which can cause a segfault. This can happen when a function frees a block of memory and then another function tries to free the same block of memory again.

Q: What is the cause of the double free error in the Vine system?

A: The cause of the double free error in the Vine system is the use of a static variable to represent the resources struct. The static variable is used by multiple functions, including the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions, which can lead to a double free error.

Q: How can a double free error be prevented?

A: A double free error can be prevented by using a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions. This will ensure that the resources struct is not freed twice.

Q: What is the role of the internal variable in the Vine system?

A: The internal variable is a static variable that represents the resources struct. It is used by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category.

Q: Why is the internal variable not properly synchronized?

A: The internal variable is not properly synchronized because it is used by multiple functions, including the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions. This can lead to a double free error.

Q: What is the impact of the double free error on the Vine system?

A: The double free error can cause a segfault, which can lead to a crash of the Vine system. This can result in data loss and other issues.

Q: How can the double free error be fixed?

A: The double free error can be fixed by using a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions. This will ensure that the resources struct is not freed twice.

Q: What are the best practices for preventing double free errors?

A: The best practices for preventing double free errors include:

  • Using a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions.
  • Ensuring that the resources struct is not freed twice.
  • Using a static variable to represent the resources struct only when necessary.
  • Reviewing the code to ensure that it is properly synchronized.

Q: What are the consequences of not fixing the double free error?

A: The consequences of not fixing the double free error can include:

  • A segfault, which can lead to a crash of the Vine system.
  • Data loss.
  • Other issues.

Q: How can the Vine system be improved to prevent double free errors?

A: The Vine system can be improved to prevent double free errors by:

  • Using a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions.
  • Ensuring that the resources struct is not freed twice.
  • Using a static variable to represent resources struct only when necessary.
  • Reviewing the code to ensure that it is properly synchronized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the double free error in the Vine system is a serious issue that can cause a segfault and lead to data loss and other issues. By following the best practices for preventing double free errors, the Vine system can be improved to prevent this issue and ensure the stability and reliability of the system.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of this issue, we recommend the following:

  • Use a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions.
  • Ensure that the resources struct is not freed twice.
  • Use a static variable to represent the resources struct only when necessary.
  • Review the code to ensure that it is properly synchronized.

Future Work

In the future, we plan to review the code that is responsible for the segfault and ensure that it is properly synchronized. We will also use a mutex to lock the resources struct while it is being accessed by multiple functions. Additionally, we will ensure that the resources struct is not freed twice.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Vine development team for their help and support in resolving this issue. We would also like to thank the open-source community for their contributions to the Vine system.

References

  • Vine system documentation
  • Category task min resources function
  • Category task max resources function
  • RMSummary delete function

Appendix

The following is a list of the tasks that were involved in the issue:

  • Task 3232: This task was the one that was resubmitted after being forsaken by a worker. It was the task that caused the segfault.

The following is a list of the functions that were involved in the issue:

  • Category task min resources function
  • Category task max resources function
  • RMSummary delete function

The following is a list of the variables that were involved in the issue:

  • Internal variable: This variable was a static variable that represented the resources struct. It was used by the category_task_min_resources and category_task_max_resources functions to compute the minimum and maximum resources required for the task category.

The following is a list of the logs that were involved in the issue:

  • Task 3232 log: This log showed the state changes of the task, including the initial state, ready state, running state, waiting retrieval state, and ready state again.

The following is a list of the debug logs that were involved in the issue:

  • Debug log: This log showed the debug information for the issue, including the stack trace and the variables that were involved in the issue.