On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 05:29:24PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 16:11:15 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:58:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:33:57PM +0200, Tim Wiederhake wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Tim Wiederhake wrote: > > [...] > > > The pthread_mutex_destroy call is the only one that I see > > returning errors with PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL. So I don't think > > there's benefit to adding the code to lock/unlock paths. > > And as noted I'd be very careful with that one too. I've got at least > one counterexample of a code path which effectively does the same on a > very common code path. > > Namely 'virDomainObjParseXML' uses: > > g_autoptr(virDomainObj) obj = NULL; > > and then returns directly on common failures such as XML parsing errors, > post-parse callback errors or even errors from the validation callbacks. > > Spamming logs in such a common code path is definitely not acceptable. Destroying a locked mutex though is a clear bug that should be fixed though, not a false positive. If it is a commonly triggered bug that is even worse and more reason to fix it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
