Re: Foreign.StablePtr: nullPtr & double-free questions.

Excerpts from Remi Turk's message of Fri Mar 08 18:28:56 -0800 2013:
Good night everyone,
I have two questions with regards to some details of the Foreign.StablePtr module. [1]
1) The documentation suggests, but does not explicitly state, that castStablePtrToPtr `liftM` newStablePtr x will never yield a nullPtr. Is this guaranteed to be the case or not? It would conveniently allow me to store a Maybe "for free", using nullPtr for Nothing, but I am hesitant about relying on something that isn't actually guaranteed by the documentation.
No, you cannot assume that. In fact, stable pointer zero is
base_GHCziTopHandler_runIO_info:
ezyang@javelin:~/Dev/haskell$ cat sptr.hs
import Foreign.StablePtr
import Foreign.Ptr
main = do
let x = castPtrToStablePtr nullPtr
freeStablePtr x
ezyang@javelin:~/Dev/haskell$ ~/Dev/ghc-build-tick/inplace/bin/ghc-stage2 --make sptr.hs -debug
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( sptr.hs, sptr.o )
Linking sptr ...
ezyang@javelin:~/Dev/haskell$ gdb ./sptr
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.5-ubuntu
Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-linux-gnu".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/...
Reading symbols from /srv/code/haskell/sptr...done.
(gdb) b freeStablePtrUnsafe
Breakpoint 1 at 0x73f8a7: file rts/Stable.c, line 263.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /srv/code/haskell/sptr
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Breakpoint 1, freeStablePtrUnsafe (sp=0x0) at rts/Stable.c:263
263 ASSERT((StgWord)sp < SPT_size);
(gdb) list
258 }
259
260 void
261 freeStablePtrUnsafe(StgStablePtr sp)
262 {
263 ASSERT((StgWord)sp < SPT_size);
264 freeSpEntry(&stable_ptr_table[(StgWord)sp]);
265 }
266
267 void
(gdb) p stable_ptr_table[(StgWord)sp]
$1 = {addr = 0x9d38e0}
(gdb) p *(StgClosure*)stable_ptr_table[(StgWord)sp]
$2 = {header = {info = 0x4e89c8
2) If I read the documentation correctly, when using StablePtr it is actually quite difficult to avoid undefined behaviour, at least in GHC(i). In particular, a double-free on a StablePtr yields undefined behaviour. However, when called twice on the same value, newStablePtr yields the same StablePtr in GHC(i). E.g.:
module Main where
import Foreign
foo x y = do p1 <- newStablePtr x p2 <- newStablePtr y print $ castStablePtrToPtr p1 == castStablePtrToPtr p2 freeStablePtr p1 freeStablePtr p2 -- potential double free!
main = let x = "Hello, world!" in foo x x -- undefined behaviour!
prints "True" under GHC(i), "False" from Hugs. Considering that foo and main might be in different packages written by different authors, this makes correct use rather complicated. Is this behaviour (and the consequential undefinedness) intentional?
I think this bug was inadvertently fixed in the latest version of GHC;
see:
commit 7e7a4e4d7e9e84b2c57d3d55e372e738b5f8dbf5
Author: Simon Marlow

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Edward Z. Yang
Excerpts from Remi Turk's message of Fri Mar 08 18:28:56 -0800 2013:
1) The documentation suggests, but does not explicitly state, that castStablePtrToPtr `liftM` newStablePtr x will never yield a nullPtr. Is this guaranteed to be the case or not? It would conveniently allow me to store a Maybe "for free", using nullPtr for Nothing, but I am hesitant about relying on something that isn't actually guaranteed by the documentation.
No, you cannot assume that. In fact, stable pointer zero is base_GHCziTopHandler_runIO_info:
[...]
Regardless, you don't want to do that anyway, because stable pointers have a bit of overhead.
Thanks for your quick reply. Could you elaborate on what "a bit of overhead" means? As a bit of context, I'm working on a small library for working with (im)mutable extendable tuples/records based on Storable and ForeignPtr, and I'm using StablePtr's as back-references to Haskell-land. Would you expect StablePtr's to have serious performance implications in such a scenario compared to, say, an IORef?
2) If I read the documentation correctly, when using StablePtr it is actually quite difficult to avoid undefined behaviour, at least in GHC(i). In particular, a double-free on a StablePtr yields undefined behaviour. However, when called twice on the same value, newStablePtr yields the same StablePtr in GHC(i). [...]
I think this bug was inadvertently fixed in the latest version of GHC; see:
Thanks, I'll just have to wait for a little while longer until 7.8 then :) Cheers, Remi
commit 7e7a4e4d7e9e84b2c57d3d55e372e738b5f8dbf5 Author: Simon Marlow
Date: Thu Feb 14 08:46:55 2013 +0000 Separate StablePtr and StableName tables (#7674)
To improve performance of StablePtr.
Cheers, Edward

Excerpts from Remi Turk's message of Wed Mar 13 13:09:18 -0700 2013:
Thanks for your quick reply. Could you elaborate on what "a bit of overhead" means? As a bit of context, I'm working on a small library for working with (im)mutable extendable tuples/records based on Storable and ForeignPtr, and I'm using StablePtr's as back-references to Haskell-land. Would you expect StablePtr's to have serious performance implications in such a scenario compared to, say, an IORef?
Yes, they will. Every stable pointer that is active has to be stuffed into a giant array, and the entire array must be traversed during every GC. See also: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7670 Edward
participants (2)
-
Edward Z. Yang
-
Remi Turk