qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu <-> libvirt communication regressed in QEMU commit


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu <-> libvirt communication regressed in QEMU commit 5243722376
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:26:43 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0


On 16/09/2015 14:13, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
> Your patch causes "rcu_registry_lock" to be reinitialized in the child,
> rather than released, plus "rcu_sync_lock" remains untouched (ie. locked
> by the one thread that exists in the child). Why is that correct?
> 
> (Side note: we're talking process-private, not process-shared mutexen.)
> 
> I can be easily wrong, but I don't understand the commit message, and
> why the patch is correct.
> 
> ... Hm, I can see the discussion here:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/356765/focus=360421
> 
> Okay... let me see 24fa90499f... "The problem is that releasing
> error-checking locks in the child fails under glibc with EPERM". <--
> That is a striking surprise to me, but still, the removal of
> PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK only justifies why your patch would *not* be
> necessary.
> 
> The last paragraph of your email that I linked above talks about a
> "possibility of corruption". Maybe I've managed to trigger that. If so,
> I hope it won't be hard to fix up.
> 
> ... Hm, apparently Alex had mentioned the same concern as I did now,
> about ignoring "rcu_sync_lock" in the child, in message
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/356765/focus=360602>.
> Was that concern cleared up eventually?

No, the patch was included by mistake.  Sorry.

Paolo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]