Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> -#define test_claimed(owner) ((long) (owner) & 1)
>>> -#define clear_claimed(owner) ((xnthread_t *) ((long) (owner) & ~1))
>>> -#define set_claimed(owner, bit) \
>>> - ((xnthread_t *) ((long) clear_claimed(owner) | !!(bit)))
>>> +#define __CLAIMED_BIT XN_HANDLE_SPARE3
>>> +
>>> +#define test_claimed(owner) xnhandle_test_spare(owner,
>>> __CLAIMED_BIT)
>>> +#define clear_claimed(owner) xnhandle_mask_spare(owner)
>>> +#define set_claimed(owner, bit) ({ \
>>> + xnhandle_t __tmp = xnhandle_mask_spare(owner); \
>>> + if (bit) \
>>> + xnhandle_set_spare(__tmp, __CLAIMED_BIT); \
>>> + __tmp; \
>>> +})
>> I liked doing this with no conditional.
>
> You mean let the caller pass 'bit' as 0 or __CLAIMED_BIT (the latter
> would require some renaming then, I guess)?
>
>>> + xnarch_atomic_set(mutex->owner,
>>> + set_claimed(xnthread_handle(owner),
>>> + xnsynch_nsleepers(&mutex->synchbase)));
>> Ok. I think you have spotted a bug here. This should be mutex->sleepers
>> instead of xnsynch_nsleepers.
>
> OK. Will you fix? I will rebase then.
>
>>> + /* Consistency check for owner handle - is the object a thread? */
>>> + if (unlikely(xnthread_handle(owner) != clear_claimed(ownerh))) {
>>> + err = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto error;
>>> }
>> What is this ?
>
> This ensures that we are not dereferences some arbitrary registry object
> due to a borken handle in the mutex variable: The the object registered
> on this handle is an xnthread, we will find the very same handle value
> at the well-known place in the object. Kind of magic for xnthread
> objects (instead of adding a magic field to them).
Yes, but the point is: how can the handle be borken ? It looks like a
useless check to me.
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
