AND IS_USED_LOCK().
Analysis:
-----------
In functions Item_func_is_free_lock::val_int() and
Item_func_is_used_lock::val_int(), for the specified user lock
name, pointer to its "User_level_lock" object is obtained from hash
"hash_user_locks". Mutex "LOCK_user_locks" is acquired for this
and released immediately. And we are accessing members of
User_level_lock after releasing the mutex. If same user lock is
deleted(released) from concurrent thread then accessing members
results in invalid(freed) memory access issue.
Deleting of user lock is also protected from the mutex
"LOCK_user_locks". Since this mutex is released in "val_int"
functions mentioned above, delete operation proceeds while concurrent
thread tries to access its members.
With the test case, valgrind reports invalid read issues in val_int
functions.
Fix:
-----------
To fix this issue, in "val_int" function of classes
"Item_func_is_free_lock" and "Item_func_is_used_lock", now releasing
mutex "LOCK_user_locks" after accessing User_level_lock members.
This crash could happen if SHOW CREATE VIEW indirectly failed to open a
view due to failures to open underlying tables (or functions). Several
such errors were hidden and converted to ER_VIEW_INVALID warnings to
prevent exposing details of underlying tables for which the user have
no privileges.
However, with the changes introduced by the patch for Bug#52044,
failing to open a view will cause opened tables, views and functions
to be closed. Since the errors causing these failures were converted
to warnings, SHOW CREATE VIEW would try to continue. This made it
possible to try to access memory that had been freed, causing a crash.
This patch fixes the problem by not closing opened tables, views and
functions in these cases. This allows SHOW CREATE VIEW to continue
and also prevents it from accessing freed memory.
Test case added to lock_sync.test.
thd->in_sub_stmt || (thd->state..
OPTIMIZE TABLE is not directly supported by InnoDB. Instead,
recreate and analyze of the table is done. After recreate,
the table is closed and locks are released before the table
is reopened and locks re-acquired for the analyze phase.
This assertion was triggered if OPTIMIZE TABLE failed to
acquire thr_lock locks before starting the analyze phase.
The assertion tests (among other things) that there no
active statement transaction. However, as part of acquiring
the thr_lock lock, external_lock() is called for InnoDB
tables and this causes a statement transaction to be started.
If thr_multi_lock() later fails (e.g. due to timeout),
the failure handling code causes this assert to be triggered.
This patch fixes the problem by doing rollback of the
current statement transaction in case open_ltable (used by
OPTIMIZE TABLE) fails to acquire thr_lock locks.
Test case added to lock_sync.test.
Fix for bug #46947 "Embedded SELECT without FOR UPDATE is
causing a lock", with after-review fixes.
SELECT statements with subqueries referencing InnoDB tables
were acquiring shared locks on rows in these tables when they
were executed in REPEATABLE-READ mode and with statement or
mixed mode binary logging turned on.
This was a regression which were introduced when fixing
bug 39843.
The problem was that for tables belonging to subqueries
parser set TL_READ_DEFAULT as a lock type. In cases when
statement/mixed binary logging at open_tables() time this
type of lock was converted to TL_READ_NO_INSERT lock at
open_tables() time and caused InnoDB engine to acquire
shared locks on reads from these tables. Although in some
cases such behavior was correct (e.g. for subqueries in
DELETE) in case of SELECT it has caused unnecessary locking.
This patch tries to solve this problem by rethinking our
approach to how we handle locking for SELECT and subqueries.
Now we always set TL_READ_DEFAULT lock type for all cases
when we read data. When at open_tables() time this lock
is interpreted as TL_READ_NO_INSERT or TL_READ depending
on whether this statement as a whole or call to function
which uses particular table should be written to the
binary log or not (if yes then statement should be properly
serialized with concurrent statements and stronger lock
should be acquired).
Test coverage is added for both InnoDB and MyISAM.
This patch introduces an "incompatible" change in locking
scheme for subqueries used in SELECT ... FOR UPDATE and
SELECT .. IN SHARE MODE.
In 4.1 the server would use a snapshot InnoDB read for
subqueries in SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT .. IN SHARE MODE
statements, regardless of whether the binary log is on or off.
If the user required a different type of read (i.e. locking read),
he/she could request so explicitly by providing FOR UPDATE/IN SHARE MODE
clause for each individual subquery.
On of the patches for 5.0 broke this behaviour (which was not documented
or tested), and started to use locking reads fora all subqueries in SELECT ...
FOR UPDATE/IN SHARE MODE. This patch restored 4.1 behaviour.
This was a deadlock between CREATE/ALTER/DROP EVENT and a query
accessing both the mysql.event table and I_S.GLOBAL_VARIABLES.
The root of the problem was that the LOCK_event_metadata mutex was
used to both protect the "event_scheduler" global system variable
and the internal event data structures used by CREATE/ALTER/DROP EVENT.
The deadlock would occur if CREATE/ALTER/DROP EVENT held
LOCK_event_metadata while trying to open the mysql.event table,
at the same time as the query had mysql.event open, trying to
lock LOCK_event_metadata to access "event_scheduler".
This bug was fixed in the scope of Bug#51160 by using only
LOCK_global_system_variables to protect "event_scheduler".
This makes it so that the query above won't lock LOCK_event_metadata,
thereby preventing this deadlock from occuring.
This patch contains no code changes.
Test case added to lock_sync.test.
This was a deadlock between ALTER TABLE and another DML statement
(or LOCK TABLES ... READ). ALTER TABLE would wait trying to upgrade
its lock to MDL_EXCLUSIVE and the DML statement would wait trying
to acquire a TL_READ_NO_INSERT table level lock.
This could happen if one connection first acquired a MDL_SHARED_READ
lock on a table. In another connection ALTER TABLE is then started.
ALTER TABLE eventually blocks trying to upgrade to MDL_EXCLUSIVE,
but while holding a TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ table level lock.
If the first connection then tries to acquire TL_READ_NO_INSERT,
it will block and we have a deadlock since neither connection can
proceed.
This patch fixes the problem by allowing TL_READ_NO_INSERT
locks to be granted if another connection holds TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ
on the same table. This will allow the DML statement to proceed
such that it eventually can release its MDL lock which in turn
makes ALTER TABLE able to proceed.
Note that TL_READ_NO_INSERT was already partially compatible with
TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ as the latter would be granted if the former
lock was held. This patch just makes the opposite true as well.
Also note that since ALTER TABLE takes an upgradable MDL lock,
there will be no starvation of ALTER TABLE statements by
statements acquiring TL_READ or TL_READ_NO_INSERT.
Test case added to lock_sync.test.
Add a wait-for graph based deadlock detector to the
MDL subsystem.
Fixes bug #46272 "MySQL 5.4.4, new MDL: unnecessary deadlock" and
bug #37346 "innodb does not detect deadlock between update and
alter table".
The first bug manifested itself as an unwarranted abort of a
transaction with ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error by a concurrent ALTER
statement, when this transaction tried to repeat use of a
table, which it has already used in a similar fashion before
ALTER started.
The second bug showed up as a deadlock between table-level
locks and InnoDB row locks, which was "detected" only after
innodb_lock_wait_timeout timeout.
A transaction would start using the table and modify a few
rows.
Then ALTER TABLE would come in, and start copying rows
into a temporary table. Eventually it would stumble on
the modified records and get blocked on a row lock.
The first transaction would try to do more updates, and get
blocked on thr_lock.c lock.
This situation of circular wait would only get resolved
by a timeout.
Both these bugs stemmed from inadequate solutions to the
problem of deadlocks occurring between different
locking subsystems.
In the first case we tried to avoid deadlocks between metadata
locking and table-level locking subsystems, when upgrading shared
metadata lock to exclusive one.
Transactions holding the shared lock on the table and waiting for
some table-level lock used to be aborted too aggressively.
We also allowed ALTER TABLE to start in presence of transactions
that modify the subject table. ALTER TABLE acquires
TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ lock at start, and that block all writes
against the table (naturally, we don't want any writes to be lost
when switching the old and the new table). TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ
lock, in turn, would block the started transaction on thr_lock.c
lock, should they do more updates. This, again, lead to the need
to abort such transactions.
The second bug occurred simply because we didn't have any
mechanism to detect deadlocks between the table-level locks
in thr_lock.c and row-level locks in InnoDB, other than
innodb_lock_wait_timeout.
This patch solves both these problems by moving lock conflicts
which are causing these deadlocks into the metadata locking
subsystem, thus making it possible to avoid or detect such
deadlocks inside MDL.
To do this we introduce new type-of-operation-aware metadata
locks, which allow MDL subsystem to know not only the fact that
transaction has used or is going to use some object but also what
kind of operation it has carried out or going to carry out on the
object.
This, along with the addition of a special kind of upgradable
metadata lock, allows ALTER TABLE to wait until all
transactions which has updated the table to go away.
This solves the second issue.
Another special type of upgradable metadata lock is acquired
by LOCK TABLE WRITE. This second lock type allows to solve the
first issue, since abortion of table-level locks in event of
DDL under LOCK TABLES becomes also unnecessary.
Below follows the list of incompatible changes introduced by
this patch:
- From now on, ALTER TABLE and CREATE/DROP TRIGGER SQL (i.e. those
statements that acquire TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ lock)
wait for all transactions which has *updated* the table to
complete.
- From now on, LOCK TABLES ... WRITE, REPAIR/OPTIMIZE TABLE
(i.e. all statements which acquire TL_WRITE table-level lock) wait
for all transaction which *updated or read* from the table
to complete.
As a consequence, innodb_table_locks=0 option no longer applies
to LOCK TABLES ... WRITE.
- DROP DATABASE, DROP TABLE, RENAME TABLE no longer abort
statements or transactions which use tables being dropped or
renamed, and instead wait for these transactions to complete.
- Since LOCK TABLES WRITE now takes a special metadata lock,
not compatible with with reads or writes against the subject table
and transaction-wide, thr_lock.c deadlock avoidance algorithm
that used to ensure absence of deadlocks between LOCK TABLES
WRITE and other statements is no longer sufficient, even for
MyISAM. The wait-for graph based deadlock detector of MDL
subsystem may sometimes be necessary and is involved. This may
lead to ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK error produced for multi-statement
transactions even if these only use MyISAM:
session 1: session 2:
begin;
update t1 ... lock table t2 write, t1 write;
-- gets a lock on t2, blocks on t1
update t2 ...
(ER_LOCK_DEADLOCK)
- Finally, support of LOW_PRIORITY option for LOCK TABLES ... WRITE
was abandoned.
LOCK TABLE ... LOW_PRIORITY WRITE from now on has the same
priority as the usual LOCK TABLE ... WRITE.
SELECT HIGH PRIORITY no longer trumps LOCK TABLE ... WRITE in
the wait queue.
- We do not take upgradable metadata locks on implicitly
locked tables. So if one has, say, a view v1 that uses
table t1, and issues:
LOCK TABLE v1 WRITE;
FLUSH TABLE t1; -- (or just 'FLUSH TABLES'),
an error is produced.
In order to be able to perform DDL on a table under LOCK TABLES,
the table must be locked explicitly in the LOCK TABLES list.
Concurrent execution of statements which require non-table-level
write locks on several instances of the same table (such as
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE which uses same InnoDB table twice or a DML
statement which invokes trigger which tries to update same InnoDB
table directly and through stored function) and statements which
required table-level locks on this table (e.g. LOCK TABLE ... WRITE,
ALTER TABLE, ...) might have resulted in a deadlock.
The problem occured when a thread tried to acquire write lock
(TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE) on the table but had to wait since there was
a pending write lock (TL_WRITE, TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ) on this table
and we failed to detect that this thread already had another instance
of write lock on it (so in fact we were trying to acquire recursive
lock) because there was also another thread holding write lock on the
table (also TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE). When the latter thread released
its lock neither the first thread nor the thread trying to acquire
TL_WRITE/TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ were woken up (as table was still write
locked by the first thread) so we ended up with a deadlock.
This patch solves this problem by ensuring that thread which
already has write lock on the table won't wait when it tries
to acquire second write lock on the same table.
