From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37264 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxHoO-000215-FI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:44:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxHoN-0008Va-9B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:44:16 -0500 Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:24556) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxHoM-0008VT-TW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:44:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4D77680C.2030908@siemens.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:44:12 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2640D58E-2101-47FA-99B6-28815666651E@dlh.net> <4D772E4C.6020604@web.de> <4D77629A.204@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D77629A.204@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: segmentation fault in qemu-kvm-0.14.0 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Lieven , qemu-devel , kvm@vger.kernel.org On 2011-03-09 12:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/09/2011 08:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> It's probably worth validating that the iothread lock is >> always held when qemu_set_fd_handler2 is invoked to confirm this race >> theory, adding something like >> >> assert(pthread_mutex_trylock(&qemu_mutex) != 0); >> (that's for qemu-kvm only) > > Alternatively, iohandlers could be a(nother) good place to start > introducing fine-grained locks or rwlocks. Yeah, could be a good idea. It's a fairly confined area here that needs protection. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux