From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42599)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WFhqH-00040m-Il
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:24:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WFhqB-0004Lw-JH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:23:57 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36172)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WFhqB-0004Lr-B7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:23:51 -0500
Message-ID: <530334AF.30206@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:23:43 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1392651898-16749-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com>	<1392651898-16749-4-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com>	<530235F0.2040406@redhat.com>
	<87a9dpsmi4.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>	<20140218090504.GB32585@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
	<87r470ivlm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <87r470ivlm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] qtest: kill QEMU process on g_assert()
 failure
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>, Andreas Faerber <afaerber@suse.de>

Il 18/02/2014 11:05, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
>> > Yes, SIGABRT is synchronous for all purposes.  So the only danger is
>> > that g_string_free() or g_free() could fail while we're in
>> > g_assert(false).  But they don't, which makes sense because they are
>> > totally unrelated to g_assert() and therefore can handle re-entrancy.
> The (theoretical!) problem is when it aborts in the bowels of g_*free(),
> and your SIGABRT handler reenters g_*free().
>
>> > In practice there is no issue and I've tested assertion failure with
>> > glib 1.2.10.
> Worst that can happen is we crash on the way from abort() to process
> termination.  Tolerable.

What about recursive locking of a non-recursive mutex?

Paolo