[devel] [PATCH 0 of 2] Review Request for ntfa: fix deadlock situation due to saNtfFinalize V2 [#1521].

[<pra...@or...>]

Summary: ntfa: fix deadlock situation due to saNtfFinalize V2[#1521]  
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): <<IF ANY LIST THE #>>
Peer Reviewer(s): <<LIST THE TECH REVIEWER(S) / MAINTAINER(S) HERE>>
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): <<LIST ALL AFFECTED BRANCH(ES)>>
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>

--------------------------------
Impacted area       Impact y/n
--------------------------------
 Docs                    n
 Build system            n
 RPM/packaging           n
 Configuration files     n
 Startup scripts         n
 SAF services            n
 OpenSAF services        n
 Core libraries          n
 Samples                 n
 Tests                   n
 Other                   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
Incorporating some comments given by Lennart.
In this version2:
-comment is added in function header of saNtfFinalize().
-two test cases is added for saNtfFinalize().

changeset ae56e045cad15d995a4531b120e1564be3142084
Author:	pra...@or...
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:48:22 +0530

	ntfa: fix deadlock situation due to saNtfFinalize [#1521].

	Generally any API called after finalize returns with BAD_HANDLE. But in a
	multi-threaded application, deadlock situation may arise between
	saNtfFinalize() with saNtfNotificationUnsubscribe(), or with
	saNtfStateChangeNotificationAllocate(), or with and saNtfPtrValAllocate().

	After getting successful response from the server, saNtfFinalize() takes
	lock on ntfa_cb.cb_lock and tries to free all the handles and resources.
	Here it gets block in ntfa_hdl_rec_del()
	---->ncshm_destroy_hdl() (actually in in
	ncshm_destroy_hdl()--->hm_block_me())) as client_handle is in use by other
	threads and waits for it to get released. At the same time, one of the above
	three APIS may be waiting for taking the lock on ntfa_cb.cb_lock which is
	not avialable as it is taken by saNtfFinalize().

	From the solution perspective, the LEAP API where santfFinalize() gets
	blocked wants other threads to complete thier functionality and release the
	handle. In this situation, new API calls will return with BAD_HANDLE (LEAP
	functionality take_handle() fails) and existing API calls which has already
	taken the client_handle will be able to give back client_handle (LEAP
	functionality give_handle()). So if the lock is removed from Finalize(),
	other APIS will be able to complete their call and will return handle one by
	one which eventually will unblock saNtfFinalize().

changeset 292811a7c5b5d4972618aa3dc1a4388fc3b3bd6a
Author:	pra...@or...
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:48:44 +0530

	tests/ntf: add test cases for saNtfFinalize [#1521].

	First test (saNtfFinalize_04) will subscribe with NTF after successful
	initialization. After this it will try to unsubscribe for notification in a
	separate thread while main thread will try to finalize with NTF. Here
	saNtfSubacribe() may get successful or return with BAD_HANDLE.

	Second test (saNtfFinalize_05) will initialize with notification service.
	After successful initialization, it will try to allocate state change
	notification in a separate thread while main thread will try to finalize
	with NTF. Here saNtfStateChangeNotificationAllocate() may get successful or
	return with BAD_HANDLE

	In both the test cases saNtfFinalize() will always be sucessful.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_api.c |    7 +++-
 tests/ntfsv/tet_saNtfFinalize.c      |  106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
Executed added test cases 2000 times.

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Not observing any deadlock.

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from any reviewer before RC1 of 4.7.

Arch      Built     Started    Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips        n          n
mips64      n          n
x86         n          n
x86_64      y          y
powerpc     n          n
powerpc64   n          n


Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]


Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):

___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
    that need proper data filled in.

___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.

___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header

___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.

___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.

___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.

___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
    (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)

___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
    Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.

___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.

___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
    like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.

___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
    cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.

___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
    too much content into a single commit.

___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)

___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
    Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.

___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
    commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.

___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
    of what has changed between each re-send.

___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
    comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.

___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)

___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
    the threaded patch review.

___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
    for in-service upgradability test.

___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
    do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.