On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:51:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 11/04/2015 06:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > + mutex_lock(&pause_lock); > > + > > + /* The kvm->cpus array contains a null pointer in the last location */ > > + for (i = 0; ; i++) { > > + if (kvm->cpus[i]) > > + pthread_kill(kvm->cpus[i]->thread, SIGKVMEXIT); > > + else > > + break; > > + } > > + > > + kvm__continue(kvm); > > In this scenario: if we grabbed pause_lock, signaled vcpu0 to exit, and it did > before we called kvm__continue(), we won't end up releasing pause_lock, which > might cause a lockup later, no?
Hmm, yeah, maybe that should be an explicit mutex_unlock rather than a call to kvm__continue. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html