[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them

[Juan Quintela]

Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>
>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<address@hidden>
>> ---
>>   vl.c |   15 ++++++++-------
>>   1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
>>           IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>>
>>           QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
>> -            if (ioh->deleted) {
>> -                QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>> -                qemu_free(ioh);
>> -                continue;
>> -            }
>> -            if (ioh->fd_read&&  FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>> +            if (!ioh->deleted&&  ioh->fd_read&&  FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>                   ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
>>               }
>> -            if (ioh->fd_write&&  FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>> +            if (!ioh->deleted&&  ioh->fd_write&&  FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>                   ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
>>               }
>> +
>> +            /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for 
>> deletion */
>> +            if (ioh->deleted) {
>> +                QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>> +                qemu_free(ioh);
>> +            }
>>           }
>>    
>
> This isn't enough.  If you end up with a handler deleting the next
> pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
> the list.

What is the point of that?

That a handler can remove itself is ok.
But that a handler can remove also the next in a list that is used for
other things looks pretty insane to me.

> The original commit should be reverted.

If that behaviour is expected, then I agree that we should revert it.
But I would consider that behaviour wrong.

Later, Juan.

> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>>       }
>>
>>