Race conditions can also occur in traditional, single-threaded programs - Clarity - c

Question

I have read few books on parallel programming over the past few months and I decided to close it off with learning about the posix thread.
I am reading "PThreads programming - A Posix standard for better multiprocessing nutshell-handbook". In chapter 5 ( Pthreads and Unix ) the author talks about handling signals in multi-threaded programs. In the "Threadsafe Library Functions and System Calls" section, the author made a statement that I have not seen in most books that I have read on parallel programming. The statement was:
Race conditions can also occur in traditional, single-threaded programs that use signal handlers or that call routines recursively. A single-threaded program of this kind may have the same routine in progress in various call frames on its process stack.
I find it a little bit tedious to decipher this statement. Does the race condition in the recursive function occur when the recursive function keeps an internal structure by using the static storage type?
I would also love to know how signal handlers can cause RACE CONDITION IN SINGLE THREADED PROGRAMS
Note: Am not a computer science student , i would really appreciate simplified terms

Answer 1

I don't think one can call it a race condition in the classical meaning. Race conditions have a somewhat stochastic behavior, depending on the scheduler policy and timings.
The author is probably talking about bugs that can arise when the same object/resource is accessed from multiple recursive calls. But this behavior is completely deterministic and manageable.
Signals on the other hand is a different story as they occur asynchronously and can apparently interrupt some data processing in the middle and trigger some other processing on that data, corrupting it when returned to the interrupted task.

Answer 2

A signal handler can be called at any time without warning, and it potentially can access any global state in the program.
So, suppose your program has some global flag, that the signal handler sets in response to,... I don't know,... SIGINT. And your program checks the flag before each call to f(x).
if (! flag) {
f(x);
}
That's a data race. There is no guarantee that f(x) will not be called after the signal happens because the signal could sneak in at any time, including right after the "main" program tests the flag.

Answer 3

First it is important to understand what a race condition is. The definition given by Wikipedia is:
Race conditions arise in software when an application depends on the sequence or timing of processes or threads for it to operate properly.
The important thing to note is that a program can behave both properly and improperly based on timing or ordering of execution.
We can fairly easily create "dummy" race conditions in single threaded programs under this definition.
bool isnow(time_t then) {
time_t now = time(0);
return now == then;
}
The above function is a very dumb example and while mostly it will not work, sometimes it will give the correct answer. The correct vs. incorrect behavior depends entirely on timing and so represents a race condition on a single thread.
Taking it a step further we can write another dummy program.
bool printHello() {
sleep(10);
printf("Hello\n");
}
The expected behavior of the above program is to print "Hello" after waiting 10 seconds.
If we send a SIGINT signal 11 seconds after calling our function, everything behaves as expected. If we send a SIGINT signal 3 seconds after calling our function, the program behaves improperly and does not print "Hello".
The only difference between the correct and incorrect behavior was the timing of the SIGINT signal. Thus, a race condition was introduced by signal handling.

Answer 4

I'm going to give a more general answer than you asked for. And this is my own, personal, pragmatic answer, not necessarily one that hews to any official, formal definition of the term "race condition".
Me, I hate race conditions. They lead to huge classes of nasty bugs that are hard to think about, hard to find, and sometimes hard to fix. So I don't like doing programming that's susceptible to race conditions. So I don't do much classically multithreaded programming.
But even though I don't do much multithreaded programming, I'm still confronted by certain classes of what feel to me like race conditions from time to time. Here are the three I try to keep in mind:
The one you mentioned: signal handlers. Receipt of a signal, and calling of a signal handler, is a truly asynchronous event. If you have a data structure of some kind, and you're in the middle of modifying it when a signal occurs, and if your signal handler also tries to modify that same data structure, you've got a race condition. If the code that was interrupted was in the middle of doing something that left the data structure in an inconsistent state, the code in the signal handler might be confused. Note, too, that it's not necessarily code right in the signal handler, but any function called by the signal handler, or called by a function that's called by the signal handler, etc.
Shared OS resources, typically in the filesystem: If your program accesses (or modifies) a file or directory in the filesystem that's also being accessed or modified by another process, you've got a big potential for race conditions. (This is not surprising, because in a computer science sense, multiple processes are multiple threads. They may have separate address spaces meaning they can't interfere with each other that way, but obviously the filesystem is a shared resource where they still can interfere with each other.)
Non-reentrant functions like strtok. If a function maintains internal, static state, you can't have a second call to that function if another instance is active. This is not a "race condition" in the formal sense at all, but it has many of the same symptoms, and also some of the same fixes: don't use static data; do try to write your functions so that they're reentrant.

Answer 5

The author of the book in which you found seems to be defining the term "race condition" in an unusual manner, or maybe he's just used the wrong term.
By the usual definition, no, recursion does not create race conditions in single-threaded programs because the term is defined with respect to the respective actions of multiple threads of execution. It is possible, however, for a recursion to produce exposure to non-reentrancy of some of the functions involved. It's also possible for a single thread to deadlock against itself. These do not reflect race conditions, but perhaps one or both of them is what the author meant.
Alternatively, maybe what you read is the result of a bad editing job. The text you quoted groups functions that employ signal handling together with recursive functions, and signal handlers indeed can produce data races, just as a multiple threads can do, because execution of a signal handler has the relevant characteristics of execution of a separate thread.

Answer 6

Race conditions absolutely happen in single-threaded programs once you have signal handlers. Look at the Unix manual page for pselect().
One way it happens is like this: You have a signal handler that sets some global flag. You check your global flag and because it is clear you make a system call that suspends, confident that when the signal arrives the system call will exit early. But the signal arrives just after you check the global flag and just before the system call takes place. So now you're hung in a system call waiting for a signal that has already arrived. In this case, the race is between your single-threaded code and an external signal.

Answer 7

Well, consider the following code:
#include <pthread.h>
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
int num = 2;
void lock_and_call_again() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
if(num > 0) {
--num;
lock_and_call_again();
}
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
lock_and_call_again();
}
(Compile with gcc -pthread thread-test.c if you safe the code as thread-test.c)
This is clearly single-threaded, isn't it?
Never the less, it will enter a dead-lock, because you try to lock an already locked mutex.
That's basically what is meant within the paragraph you cited, IMHO:
It does not matter whether it is done in several threads or one single thread, if you try to lock an already locked mutex, your program will end in an dead-lock.
If a function calls itself, like lock_and_call above, it what is called a recursive call .
Just as james large explains, a signal can occur any time, and if a signal handler is registered with this signal, it will called at unpredictable times, if no measures are taken, even while the same handler is already being executed - yielding some kind of implicit recursive execution of the signal handler.
If this handler aquires some kind of a lock, you end up in a dead-lock, even without a function calling itself explicitly.
Consider the following function:
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
void my_handler(int s) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
sleep(10);
pthread_mutex_unnlock(&mutex);
}
Now if you register this function for a particular signal, it will be called whenever the signal is caught by your program. If the handler has been called and sleeps, it might get interrupted, the handler called again, and the handler try to lock the mutex that is already locked.
Regarding the wording of the citation:
"A single-threaded program of this kind may have the same routine in progress in various call frames on its process stack."
When a function gets called, some information is stored on the process's stack - e.g. the return address. This information is called a call frame. If you call a function recursively, like in the example above, this information gets stored on the stack several times - several call frames are stored.
It's stated a littlebit clumsy, I admit...