❦ 4 avril 2018 16:21 +0200, Vincent Bernat <bernat@xxxxxxxx> : >> 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. My bad, I didn't see the use of table->current... -- The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ libvirt-users mailing list libvirt-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
