本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

deadlock-detection-harness

Build deadlock-detection harnesses - extract lock-acquire-order graph via instrumentation, run cycle detection (DFS) to spot inconsistent ordering, use lock-acquire timeouts to surface rather than hang, JVM `jstack` / `gdb thread apply all bt` for postmortem analysis. Pair with ThreadSanitizer's `detect_deadlocks=1` for runtime detection. Use when a service that holds two or more locks hangs in production with no crash or error, or before release when lock acquisition order across code paths has never been proven consistent.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json673 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

deadlock-detection-harness

A deadlock = a cycle in the lock-wait graph: thread A holds X waiting for Y; thread B holds Y waiting for X. Tests prevent deadlocks via static analysis of lock acquisition order + runtime detection (timeouts, sanitizer, postmortem dumps).

When to use

  • Service has multiple locks/mutexes and complex code paths.
  • Production hang reported; need to (a) reproduce and (b) prevent recurrence.
  • Pre-release: detect_deadlocks ThreadSanitizer mode passes on the test workload.

Step 1 - Lock-order convention

Establish a strict ordering for all locks and document it:

# Lock order (acquire low-numbered first; release high-numbered first)
LOCK_ORDER = {
    "user_lock": 1,
    "session_lock": 2,
    "audit_lock": 3,
    "db_lock": 4,
}

Any code that violates this order = potential deadlock. The deadlock harness's job: detect violations.

Step 2 - Instrument lock acquisitions

For Python (rough sketch using contextvars + decorator):

import contextvars
import threading

acquired = contextvars.ContextVar("acquired", default=())

class OrderedLock:
    def __init__(self, name, order):
        self._lock = threading.Lock()
        self.name = name
        self.order = order

    def __enter__(self):
        held = acquired.get()
        if held and held[-1].order >= self.order:
            raise RuntimeError(
                f"Lock-order violation: holding {[h.name for h in held]} "
                f"(orders {[h.order for h in held]}), want {self.name} (order {self.order})"
            )
        self._lock.acquire()
        acquired.set(held + (self,))
        return self

    def __exit__(self, *exc):
        acquired.set(acquired.get()[:-1])
        self._lock.release()

In tests, use OrderedLock everywhere. Violations raise synchronously (test fails) instead of silently risking deadlock.

Step 3 - Build lock-acquire-order graph from logs

For dynamic analysis (when static order isn't enough), capture acquire events and build the graph:

from collections import defaultdict

def build_lock_graph(events):
    """events: list of (thread_id, action, lock_name)
    action ∈ {'acquire', 'release'}
    """
    held = defaultdict(set)
    edges = defaultdict(set)  # lock A → lock B = "B was acquired while A held"

    for tid, action, lock in events:
        if action == "acquire":
            for prior in held[tid]:
                edges[prior].add(lock)
            held[tid].add(lock)
        else:
            held[tid].discard(lock)
    return edges

Step 4 - Cycle detection (DFS)

def find_cycles(graph):
    WHITE, GRAY, BLACK = 0, 1, 2
    color = {n: WHITE for n in graph}
    cycles = []

    def visit(node, path):
        if color.get(node) == GRAY:
            cycles.append(path[path.index(node):])
            return
        if color.get(node) == BLACK:
            return
        color[node] = GRAY
        for nxt in graph.get(node, ()):
            visit(nxt, path + [nxt])
        color[node] = BLACK

    for n in list(graph):
        visit(n, [n])
    return cycles

def test_no_lock_cycles_in_workload():
    events = run_workload_capture()
    graph = build_lock_graph(events)
    cycles = find_cycles(graph)
    assert cycles == [], f"Lock cycles detected: {cycles}"

Any cycle = potential deadlock under the right scheduling.

Step 5 - Lock-acquire timeout (fail-fast)

def test_lock_acquired_within_timeout():
    lock = threading.Lock()
    holder_done = threading.Event()

    def hold_forever():
        with lock:
            holder_done.wait()  # never completes

    t = threading.Thread(target=hold_forever, daemon=True)
    t.start()
    time.sleep(0.1)

    acquired = lock.acquire(timeout=2.0)
    assert acquired, "Lock not acquired within 2s - possible deadlock"
    holder_done.set()

In production code, use timed acquires + escalation (log + alert) instead of indefinite wait - tests verify the contract.

Step 6 - TSan deadlock detection (C/C++/Go)

ThreadSanitizer (per the TSan docs) supports deadlock detection. Enable per-process:

TSAN_OPTIONS=detect_deadlocks=1:second_deadlock_stack=1 ./program

Output identifies the inconsistent lock orderings causing potential deadlocks. Catches bugs that haven't manifested as actual deadlock yet.

Step 7 - Postmortem dump analysis

When deadlock happens in production, capture state for offline analysis:

StackTool
JVMjstack <pid> (heap-style, includes lock-graph annotation Found one Java-level deadlock)
Native (Linux)gdb -p <pid> -batch -ex "thread apply all bt"
Gokill -SIGQUIT <pid> (dumps all goroutine stacks + lock holders)
.NETdotnet-dump collect -p <pid> + analyze with dotnet-dump analyze
# JVM example
jstack 12345 > thread-dump.txt
grep -A 5 "Found one Java-level deadlock" thread-dump.txt

Step 8 - Lock-acquire fingerprint test

For systems where lock order is too complex for Step 1 static ordering, fingerprint each acquire site and verify it's stable:

import hashlib, traceback

acquire_fingerprints = {}

def fingerprint_acquire(lock_name):
    stack = "".join(traceback.format_stack()[-5:])
    key = hashlib.sha256(stack.encode()).hexdigest()[:8]
    acquire_fingerprints.setdefault(lock_name, set()).add(key)

def test_lock_acquired_from_few_sites():
    # Run workload
    run_workload()

    # Each lock should be acquired from a small fingerprint set
    for lock, fps in acquire_fingerprints.items():
        assert len(fps) <= 5, f"Lock {lock} acquired from {len(fps)} sites - refactor"

Fewer acquire sites = easier to reason about lock order.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Indefinite lock.acquire() in productionDeadlock = silent hangUse timed acquire + alert (Step 5)
Test deadlock by waiting and observingFlaky; test suite may run before deadlock surfacesStatic order check (Step 1) + cycle detection (Step 4)
Skip TSan deadlock detection in CILatent ordering bugs shipdetect_deadlocks=1 (Step 6)
No postmortem capture in prodEach incident reproduces from scratchjstack on hang (Step 7)
Many acquire sites per lockHard to reason about; ordering breaksFingerprint (Step 8)

Limitations

  • Static lock-order works for "manual" locks; not for ad-hoc synchronization (channels, semaphores, condition variables).
  • Cycle detection misses async deadlocks (callback-based, promise-based) - see async-ordering-tests.
  • TSan adds significant overhead (5-15×); not suitable for prod.
  • Postmortem dumps reveal current state only; root cause still needs human analysis.

References

  • TSan docs - detect_deadlocks=1 runtime option
  • jstack - included with JDK; man jstack
  • race-condition-test-author - data-race detection (different problem class)
  • async-ordering-tests - async-equivalent of deadlock detection

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する