❦  4 avril 2018 15:59 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com> :

>> I may have missed this suggestion. Maybe Dan only sent it to you?
> No, there is another thread where this issue is discussed:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-April/msg00190.html
>  In the
>> meantime, could I change the locks around virHashForEach() and similar
>> as read/write locks?
> You can do that locally, but as a patch it's very unlikely to be
> accepted upstream because we've introduced RW locks to be able to access
> domain list from multiple threads.

Looking a bit more, the whole "iterating" bit is currently
unsafe. First, it is racy since it's "check then take". Two threads may
check the value is false and start iterating both. Moreover, at some
places, it is not set, for example in virHashAddOrUpdateEntry(). So, it
would be possible to call this function and during the update to iterate
over the hash. This seems to be prevented only by callers using RW
lock. So, it seems we can just remove this "iterating" bool and just
check all users of these functions are using the appropriate lock.
Make sure all variables are initialised before use.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

libvirt-users mailing list

Reply via email to