Philip Guenther wrote: > Yes, two _MALLOC_LEAVE calls can occur without a _MALLOC_ENTRY between them. > > T1 -> MALLOC_LOCK, do stuff > T2 -> block in MALLOC_LOCK > T1 -> MALLOC_LEAVE, MMAP() > unmap_me is still set, but to an already unmaped region > T2 -> return from MALLOC_LOCK, do stuff > T1 -> block in MALLOC_ENTRY > T2 -> MALLOC_LEAVE > this unmaps the same unmap_me from above, which may have > already been mapped by some other thread > > MALLOC_LEAVE must clear unmap_me after copying the value into local > variables and before releasing the lock, MALLOC_ENTRY shouldn't touch > them at all.
AH! the light goes on. I incorrectly thought MALLOC ENTER/LEAVE were the functions called everywhere. having a separate set of LOCK/UNLOCK calls elsewhere is trouble. This could be reworked to consistently use ENTER/LEAVE, but not today.
