[rt.openssl.org #4526] bug: use of ExitProcess on Windows platforms, 1.0.2g #2489
Comments
|
This is not behavior introduced in 1.1.1, so removing that milestone. |
|
This needs a revisit in newer branches |
|
@mattcaswell, can you remember why you reverted the change to use TerminateProcess()? |
|
I don't recall the details of this but commit f219a1b has this description: "TerminateProcess is asynchronous, so the code as written in the above commit is not correct. It is also probably not needed in the speed case. Reverting in order to figure out the correct solution." The original gitlab merge request (this was pre github), additionally claims that the original code did not even compile at the time that we reverted it. |
|
Yeah, so re asynchronous, I'll quote the response from the description above:
As for not compiling (assume you meant the code with I'm thinking of reapplying the original patch and then bash it mercilessly until it compiles properly... and concerns about such action? |
|
Nope. |
Ty Baen-Price explains: > Problem and Resolution: > The following lines of code make use of the Microsoft API ExitProcess: > > ``` > Apps\Speed.c line 335: ExitProcess(ret); > Ms\uplink.c line 22: ExitProcess(1); > ``` > > These function calls are made after fatal errors are detected and > program termination is desired. ExitProcess(), however causes > _orderly_ shutdown of a process and all its threads, i.e. it unloads > all dlls and runs all destructors. See MSDN for details of exactly > what happens > (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682658(v=vs.85).aspx). > The MSDN page states that ExitProcess should never be called unless > it is _known to be safe_ to call it. These calls should simply be > replaced with calls to TerminateProcess(), which is what should be > called for _disorderly_ shutdown. > > An example of usage: > > ``` > TerminateProcess(GetCurrentProcess(), exitcode); > ``` > > Effect of Problem: > Because of a compilation error (wrong c++ runtime), my program > executed the uplink.c ExitProcess() call. This caused the single > OpenSSL thread to start executing the destructors of all my dlls, > and their objects. Unfortunately, about 30 other threads were > happily using those objects at that time, eventually causing a > 0xC0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION. Obviously an ACCESS_VIOLATION is the > best case scenario, as I'm sure you can imagine at the consequences > of undiscovered memory corruption, even in a terminating process. And on the subject of `TerminateProcess()` being asynchronous: > That is technically true, but I think it's probably synchronous > "enough" for your purposes, since a call to TerminateProcess > suspends execution of all threads in the target process. This means > it's really only asynchronous if you're calling TerminateProcess one > some _other_ process. If you're calling TerminateProcess on your own > process, you'll never return from the TerminateProcess call. Fixes openssl#2489 Was originally RT-4526
Ty Baen-Price explains: > Problem and Resolution: > The following lines of code make use of the Microsoft API ExitProcess: > > ``` > Apps\Speed.c line 335: ExitProcess(ret); > Ms\uplink.c line 22: ExitProcess(1); > ``` > > These function calls are made after fatal errors are detected and > program termination is desired. ExitProcess(), however causes > _orderly_ shutdown of a process and all its threads, i.e. it unloads > all dlls and runs all destructors. See MSDN for details of exactly > what happens > (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682658(v=vs.85).aspx). > The MSDN page states that ExitProcess should never be called unless > it is _known to be safe_ to call it. These calls should simply be > replaced with calls to TerminateProcess(), which is what should be > called for _disorderly_ shutdown. > > An example of usage: > > ``` > TerminateProcess(GetCurrentProcess(), exitcode); > ``` > > Effect of Problem: > Because of a compilation error (wrong c++ runtime), my program > executed the uplink.c ExitProcess() call. This caused the single > OpenSSL thread to start executing the destructors of all my dlls, > and their objects. Unfortunately, about 30 other threads were > happily using those objects at that time, eventually causing a > 0xC0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION. Obviously an ACCESS_VIOLATION is the > best case scenario, as I'm sure you can imagine at the consequences > of undiscovered memory corruption, even in a terminating process. And on the subject of `TerminateProcess()` being asynchronous: > That is technically true, but I think it's probably synchronous > "enough" for your purposes, since a call to TerminateProcess > suspends execution of all threads in the target process. This means > it's really only asynchronous if you're calling TerminateProcess one > some _other_ process. If you're calling TerminateProcess on your own > process, you'll never return from the TerminateProcess call. Fixes #2489 Was originally RT-4526 Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from #8301) (cherry picked from commit 9257959)
Migrated from rt.openssl.org#4526 (status was 'open')
Requestors:
From rsalz@openssl.org on 2016-06-15 17:42:58:
From matt@openssl.org on 2016-06-16 16:44:16:
From tbaen@wynyardgroup.com on 2016-06-20 01:53:28:
[re-edited for better readability /@levitte]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: