07/06/10 - 09:33pm
When designing the new libssh architecture, we decided to make it completely callback-based, even internally. This provide cool features, like the possibility to extend libssh without recompiling it, or executing more easily asynchronous or nonblocking functions. Libssh 0.5 will run as a state machine, which listen for packets, and then calls callbacks from the packet type. The handlers will evaluate the current state of the session and what to do with packets. Sometimes, the state of the session itself changes as the result of a packet (e.g. when receiving a SSH_AUTH_SUCCESS packet).
A sequence diagram of a synchronous function such as authentication or simple channel read can be systematized as following:
What’s happening is pretty straightforward. The thread X is waiting for a specific packet x (or more precisely, the internal state change caused by packet x). It calls a function called ProcessInput (this is a simplification) which itself locks itself and tries to read packets from the socket. After a packet has been read, the callback for the packet (in this case, x) is called, which updates the internal state of the session.
ProcessInput returns after reading one packet. X verifies that the state changes to x, otherwise, it simply tries a ProcessInput again (not on the drawing) until it receives a state change it can process.
Then, what’s the problem ?
I though that this design could provide an interesting feature to libssh users. By adding a lock in the ProcessInput function (already on the previous drawing), we could let applications call different libssh functions on a same session, simultaneously, in different threads. Thread X could be doing a blocking ssh_channel_read() on one channel while thread Y could be doing the same on another. A naive implementation of locking would give this result :
This sequence diagram is a simple extension of the previous one. Thread X waits for a packet x, and thread Y wait its turn by using a lock (or semaphore) in ProcessInput(Y). Looks great, except there’s a downfall. This exemple does not work if the first packet to show up is not an x packet :
In this example, the x packet never arrives. the ProcessInput called by the X thread receives the y packet and do process it (after all, all threads can manipulate the internal state of the session). The problem is that after ProcessInput has processed the y packet (and left X unhappy and looping in hope of receiving the x packet), ProcessInput(Y)’s lock was released, and Y is doing a packet read, which can be blocking and make the Y thread wait for a moment. This is unfortunate because Y was in the correct state y before calling ReadPacket. Unfortunately, ProcessInput is meant to be generic enough and doesn’t know anything about the x or y states.
I’m looking for some kind of design pattern, or elegant solution to resolve this problem, by those who already resolved this problem before me.
Potential solution ?
I have though of two solutions:
- A lock would “remember” it was blocked by another thread, would wait until the lock is free and then directly return to the caller. This way, our Y thread would not run the potentially blocking ReadPacket function, in the case thread X made the hard work for him. In the opposite case (our second example), Y would call ProcessInput a second time and catch the y packet soon or later.
Unfortunately, I do not see an elegant way of doing this with the common denominator building blocks of pthread and win32 threads. It doesn’t look like an elegant solution to me, but it complies with the specification “ProcessInput returns when at least one packet has been read since the call for ProcessInput”.
- A received packet counter would be read at the start of the ProcessInput function and stored in the local stack. The packet counter would then be incremented each time a packet is received in the session, and after entering in the critical area of ProcessInput, the values would be compared. If it changed, ProcessInput would return.
I suspect this scenario is vulnerable to races between the moment the function is called and the counter is read. Nothing tells us that another thread did not just finish to read the y packet before we initialize the local packet counter.
- The ProcessInput function would take an additional parameter which would help it to tell if the ReadPacket function is still worth being called. This could be a callback to be called just after acquiring the lock. For instance, Y could call ProcessInput with a specific callback function check_y() which checks if the status has changed by action of the y packet. This function could also be called by the Y function itself in the ProcessInput loop, since it’s somewhat the termination condition for the loop.
As a drawback, I think this solution adds additional binding between the ProcessInput function and the potential callers (there are hundreds of them in libssh master) and may add too much complexity.
What’s your opinion ? Feel free to comment !