There is a possible deadlock in `device.Close()` when you try to close
the device very soon after its start. The problem is that two different
methods acquire the same locks in different order:
1. device.Close()
- device.ipcMutex.Lock()
- device.state.Lock()
2. device.changeState(deviceState)
- device.state.Lock()
- device.ipcMutex.Lock()
Reproducer:
func TestDevice_deadlock(t *testing.T) {
d := randDevice(t)
d.Close()
}
Problem:
$ go clean -testcache && go test -race -timeout 3s -run TestDevice_deadlock ./device | grep -A 10 sync.runtime_SemacquireMutex
sync.runtime_SemacquireMutex(0xc000117d20?, 0x94?, 0x0?)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/runtime/sema.go:77 +0x25
sync.(*Mutex).lockSlow(0xc000130518)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/sync/mutex.go:171 +0x213
sync.(*Mutex).Lock(0xc000130518)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/sync/mutex.go:90 +0x55
golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/device.(*Device).Close(0xc000130500)
/Users/martin.basovnik/git/basovnik/wireguard-go/device/device.go:373 +0xb6
golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/device.TestDevice_deadlock(0x0?)
/Users/martin.basovnik/git/basovnik/wireguard-go/device/device_test.go:480 +0x2c
testing.tRunner(0xc00014c000, 0x131d7b0)
--
sync.runtime_SemacquireMutex(0xc000130564?, 0x60?, 0xc000130548?)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/runtime/sema.go:77 +0x25
sync.(*Mutex).lockSlow(0xc000130750)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/sync/mutex.go:171 +0x213
sync.(*Mutex).Lock(0xc000130750)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/sync/mutex.go:90 +0x55
sync.(*RWMutex).Lock(0xc000130750)
/usr/local/opt/go/libexec/src/sync/rwmutex.go:147 +0x45
golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/device.(*Device).upLocked(0xc000130500)
/Users/martin.basovnik/git/basovnik/wireguard-go/device/device.go:179 +0x72
golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/device.(*Device).changeState(0xc000130500, 0x1)
Signed-off-by: Martin Basovnik <martin.basovnik@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Only bother updating the rxBytes counter once we've processed a whole
vector, since additions are atomic.
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Peer.RoutineSequentialReceiver() deals with packet vectors and does not
need to perform timer and endpoint operations for every packet in a
given vector. Changing these per-packet operations to per-vector
improves throughput by as much as 10% in some environments.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Whited <jordan@tailscale.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
