Condition Variable in Shared Memory - is this code POSIX-conformant? - unix

Question

Does the POSIX standard allow a named shared memory block to contain a mutex and condition variable?
We've been trying to use a mutex and condition variable to synchronise access to named shared memory by two processes on a LynuxWorks LynxOS-SE system (POSIX-conformant).
One shared memory block is called "/sync" and contains the mutex and condition variable, the other is "/data" and contains the actual data we are syncing access to.
We're seeing failures from pthread_cond_signal() if both processes don't perform the mmap() calls in exactly the same order, or if one process mmaps in some other piece of shared memory before it mmaps the "/sync" memory.
This example code is about as short as I can make it:
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
static const string shm_name_sync("/sync");
static const string shm_name_data("/data");
struct shared_memory_sync
{
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t condition;
};
struct shared_memory_data
{
int a;
int b;
};
//Create 2 shared memory objects
// - sync contains 2 shared synchronisation objects (mutex and condition)
// - data not important
void create()
{
// Create and map 'sync' shared memory
int fd_sync = shm_open(shm_name_sync.c_str(), O_CREAT|O_RDWR, S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
ftruncate(fd_sync, sizeof(shared_memory_sync));
void* addr_sync = mmap(0, sizeof(shared_memory_sync), PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd_sync, 0);
shared_memory_sync* p_sync = static_cast<shared_memory_sync*> (addr_sync);
// init the cond and mutex
pthread_condattr_t cond_attr;
pthread_condattr_init(&cond_attr);
pthread_condattr_setpshared(&cond_attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
pthread_cond_init(&(p_sync->condition), &cond_attr);
pthread_condattr_destroy(&cond_attr);
pthread_mutexattr_t m_attr;
pthread_mutexattr_init(&m_attr);
pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&m_attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
pthread_mutex_init(&(p_sync->mutex), &m_attr);
pthread_mutexattr_destroy(&m_attr);
// Create the 'data' shared memory
int fd_data = shm_open(shm_name_data.c_str(), O_CREAT|O_RDWR, S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
ftruncate(fd_data, sizeof(shared_memory_data));
void* addr_data = mmap(0, sizeof(shared_memory_data), PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd_data, 0);
shared_memory_data* p_data = static_cast<shared_memory_data*> (addr_data);
// Run the second process while it sleeps here.
sleep(10);
int res = pthread_cond_signal(&(p_sync->condition));
assert(res==0); // <--- !!!THIS ASSERT WILL FAIL ON LYNXOS!!!
munmap(addr_sync, sizeof(shared_memory_sync));
shm_unlink(shm_name_sync.c_str());
munmap(addr_data, sizeof(shared_memory_data));
shm_unlink(shm_name_data.c_str());
}
//Open the same 2 shared memory objects but in reverse order
// - data
// - sync
void open()
{
sleep(2);
int fd_data = shm_open(shm_name_data.c_str(), O_RDWR, S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
void* addr_data = mmap(0, sizeof(shared_memory_data), PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd_data, 0);
shared_memory_data* p_data = static_cast<shared_memory_data*> (addr_data);
int fd_sync = shm_open(shm_name_sync.c_str(), O_RDWR, S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
void* addr_sync = mmap(0, sizeof(shared_memory_sync), PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd_sync, 0);
shared_memory_sync* p_sync = static_cast<shared_memory_sync*> (addr_sync);
// Wait on the condvar
pthread_mutex_lock(&(p_sync->mutex));
pthread_cond_wait(&(p_sync->condition), &(p_sync->mutex));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(p_sync->mutex));
munmap(addr_sync, sizeof(shared_memory_sync));
munmap(addr_data, sizeof(shared_memory_data));
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if(argc>1)
{
open();
}
else
{
create();
}
return (0);
}
Run this program with no args, then another copy with args, and the first one will fail at the assert checking the pthread_cond_signal().
But change the order of the open() function to mmap() the "/sync" memory before the "/data" and it will all work fine.
This seems like a major bug in LynxOS to me, but LynuxWorks claim that using mutex and condition variable within named shared memory in this way is not covered by the POSIX standard, so they are not interested.
Can anyone determine if this code does actually violate POSIX?
Or does anyone have any convincing documentation that it is POSIX compliant?
Edit: we know that PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED is POSIX and is supported by LynxOS. The area of contention is whether mutexes and semaphores can be used within named shared memory (as we have done) or if POSIX only allows them to be used when one process creates and mmaps the shared memory and then forks the second process.

Answer 1

The pthread_mutexattr_setpshared function may be used to allow a pthread mutex in shared memory to be accessed by any thread which has access to that memory, even threads in different processes. According to this link, pthread_mutex_setpshared conforms to POSIX P1003.1c. (Same thing goes for the condition variable, see pthread_condattr_setpshared.)
Related question: pthread condition variables on Linux, odd behaviour

Answer 2

I can easily see how PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED can be tricky to implement on the OS-level (e.g. MacOS doesn't, except for rwlocks it seems). But just from reading the standard, you seem to have a case.
For completeness, you might want to assert on sysconf(_SC_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED) and the return value of the *_setpshared() function calls— maybe there's another "surprise" waiting for you (but I can see from the comments that you already checked that SHARED is actually supported).
#JesperE: you might want to refer to the API docs at the OpenGroup instead of the HP docs.

Answer 3

May be there is some pointers in pthread_cond_t (without pshared), so you must place it into the same addresses in both threads/processes. With same-ordered mmaps you may get a equal addresses for both processes.
In glibc the pointer in cond_t was to thread descriptor of thread, owned mutex/cond.
You can control addresses with non-NULL first parameter to mmap.