Re: Recent testsuite/winsup.api/pthread/cancel2 failure

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:07:13 +0900
Takashi Yano wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 16:46:53 +0100
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Dec 22 23:37, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > > Alignment issue?
> > > 
> > > This might be the right thing.
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > > index 86a00e76e..ec1e3c98c 100644
> > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > > @@ -630,6 +630,8 @@ pthread::cancel ()
> > >        threadlist_t *tl_entry = cygheap->find_tls (cygtls);
> > >        if (!cygtls->inside_kernel (&context))
> > >  	{
> > > +	  if ((context._CX_stackPtr & 8) == 0)
> > > +	    context._CX_stackPtr -= 8;
> > 
> > Does that really help?  Checking for 8 byte alignment is usually done
> > with (X & 7) != 0, because this won't catch 16 byte aligned stacks.
> 
> This code does not aim for 8 byte alignment, but 16n + 8. I assume
> context._CX_stackPtr & 7 is always 0. I wonder if this assumption
> is true. What if user code pushes 16 bit register such as AX?
> It might be necessary to mask least 3 bits in advance.
> 
> diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> index 86a00e76e..628aef16f 100644
> --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> @@ -630,6 +630,9 @@ pthread::cancel ()
>        threadlist_t *tl_entry = cygheap->find_tls (cygtls);
>        if (!cygtls->inside_kernel (&context))
>  	{
> +	  context._CX_stackPtr &= 0xfffffffffffffff8UL;
> +	  if ((context._CX_stackPtr & 8) == 0)
> +	    context._CX_stackPtr -= 8;
>  	  context._CX_instPtr = (ULONG_PTR) pthread::static_cancel_self;
>  	  SetThreadContext (win32_obj_id, &context);
>  	}
> 
> > But afaic the stack is always 8 byte aligned anyway.  However, there are
> > some scenarios where 16 byte alignment is required, as for context
> > itself when calling RtlCaptureContext.  Maybe that's the problem here?
> 
> I think so. x86_64 ABI in Windows requires 16 byte alignment.
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/stack-usage?view=msvc-170
> says:
>     The stack will always be maintained 16-byte aligned, except
>     within the prolog (for example, after the return address is pushed), 
> 
> Therefore, stack alignment here must be 16n +  8 byte alignment.
> Because 'call' instruction pushes the RIP (8 byte) into stack,
> while the code
> context._CX_instPtr = (ULONG_PTR) pthread::static_cancel_self;
> does not do that.
> 
> > But the context Stackptr is the stackpointer of the current function the
> > target thread is running in.  The instruction pointer is set to
> > pthread::static_cancel_self(), which doesn't get any arguments and doesn't
> > use any content from the stack.
> 
> Yeah, that was my question.
> 
> > It might be a good idea to make sure the stack is always 16 byte
> > aligned, but I don't see why pthread::static_cancel_self() ->
> > pthread::cancel_self() -> pthread::exit() would require other than 8
> > byte alignment.
> 
> pthread::exit() calls _cygtls::remove(), and it calls CloseHandle(),
> It appears that, from a certain point, CloseHandle() stopped working
> unless it was 16n + 8 byte aligned.

I confirmed that SbSelectProdedure() does not use 'movaps' instruction
in Windows 10 22H2, while it uses 'movaps' in Win 11 25H2.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:11:15 +0000
Jon Turney wrote:
> I have the vague idea that this problem started showing up (more?) when 
> the CI VM was upgraded from Windows Server 2022 to Windows Server 2025, 
> but I guess that's maybe just timings...

I guess the same is true between Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025.

> On 14/12/2025 07:39, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> >> I'm not sure why this happens, but it also falis in my local environment.
> >> I looked into this issue a bit, and found that access violation happnes
> >> in CloseHandle() in _cygtls::remove().
> >>
> >> And I am also not sure why at all, cancel2 works if CloseHandle()'s are
> >> replaced with NtClose() as follows.
> 
> I think this is just the difference between the two calls: CloseHandle 
> generates an exception whereas NtClose returns an error code if the 
> handle is invalid.

Perhaps, NtClose() does not use SbSelectProcedure(), then it works
on 8 byte alignment by chance.

-- 
Takashi Yano <[email protected]>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple