This prevents two different kinds of client errors from causing
undetected memory corruption, and helps with the detection of others:
1. We no longer deallocate objects when the weak count goes to zero
and there have been no strong references. This otherwise causes
us to return a garbage object from a constructor if the constructor
allocates and deallocates a weak pointer to this. And we do know
that clients allocate such weak pointers in constructors and their
lifetime is hard to trace.
2. We abort if a RefBase object is explicitly destroyed while
the weak count is nonzero. Otherwise a subsequent decrement
would cause a write to potentially reallocated memory.
3. We check counter values returned by atomic decrements for
plausibility, and fail immediately if they are not plausible.
We unconditionally log any cases in which 1 changes behavior
from before. We abort in cases in which 2 changes behavior, since
those reflect clear bugs.
In case 1, a log message now indicates a possible leak. We have
not seen such a message in practice.
The third point introduces a small amount of overhead into the
reference count decrement path. But this should be negligible
compared to the actual decrement cost.
Add a test for promote/attemptIncStrong that tries to check for
both (1) above and concurrent operation of attemptIncStrong.
Add some additional warnings and explanations to the RefBase
documentation.
Bug: 30503444
Bug: 30292291
Bug: 30292538
Change-Id: Ida92b9a2e247f543a948a75d221fbc0038dea66c
Add basic interface documentation to RefBase.h.
Much, but not all, of this is cut-and-pasted from an email message
from Mathias Agopian. The rest is reconstructed from the code.
Delete some, now redundant, text from Refbase.cpp, and add a bit
more about the implementation strategy.
Some minor fixes to internal comments.
Bug: 30292291
Change-Id: I56518ae5553bc6de0cc2331778e7fcf2e6c4fd87
The compensating onLastStrongRef call could be made even when there
was no onIncStrongAttempted call to compensate for. This
happened in the OBJECT_LIFETIME_STRONG case when e.g. curCount
was initially zero, but was concurrently incremented by another
thread.
I believe the old code was also incorrect in the
curCount = INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE + 1 case,
which seems to be possible under unlikely conditions.
In that case, I believe the compensating call IS needed.
Thus the condition was also changed.
Bug: 30503444
Change-Id: I44bcbcbb1264e4b52b6d3750dc39b041c4140381
Convert to use std::atomic directly.
Consistently use relaxed ordering for increments, release ordering
for decrements, and an added acquire fence when the count goes to
zero.
Fix what looks like another race in attemptIncStrong:
It seems entirely possible that the final adjustment for
INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE would see e.g. INITIAL_STRONG_VALUE + 1,
since we could be running in the middle of another initial
increment.
Attempt to somewhat document what this actually does, and
what's expected from the client. Hide the documentation in
the .cpp file for now.
Remove a confusing redundant test in decWeak. OBJECT_LIFETIME_STRONG
and OBJECT_LIFETIME_WEAK are the only options, in spite of some
of the original comments.
It's conceivable that either of these issues has resulted in
actual crashes, though I would guess the probability is small.
It's hard enough to reason about this code without the bugs.
Bug: 28705989
Change-Id: I4107a56c3fc0fdb7ee17fc8a8f0dd7fb128af9d8
Also cleans up two instances of open() with useless mode params, and
changes a few uses of snprintf to use sizeof(buffer) instead of
hardcoded buffer sizes.
Change-Id: If11591003d910c995e72ad8f75afd072c255a3c5
- Deal with some -Wunused issues
- Override PRI macros (windows)
- Revert use of PRI macros on off64_t (linux)
- Deal with a gnu++11 complaince issue
Change-Id: Ie66751293bd84477a5a6dfd8a57e700a16e36964
This was broken about 5 months ago in change I78435ed49aa196a0efb45bf9b2d58b62c41737d3.
See: https://goto.google.com/jhtss
Change-Id: Icc32993552efed3015bc1b79a7bd872d7510e020
Hans Boehm