Merged.
Thanks.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Wang <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear maintainer, is this patch looks fine to you?
Regards,
Michael Wang
On 10/12/2016 10:54 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>
> Inside parse_cmd() the pthread_cleanup_pop() rely on '!r' as the
> indicator of locked or not, while this will be overwritten if the
> handler return failed, and the unlock will be missing.
>
> This will lead into the situation that all the following operation
> will trying to hold a lock which will never be released.
>
> This patch using a separate flag to record the status of locking to
> make sure the unlock and lock are in pairs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> multipathd/cli.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/multipathd/cli.c b/multipathd/cli.c
> index e8a9384..50161be 100644
> --- a/multipathd/cli.c
> +++ b/multipathd/cli.c
> @@ -481,6 +481,7 @@ parse_cmd (char * cmd, char ** reply, int * len, void * data, int timeout )
> tmo.tv_sec = 0;
> }
> if (h->locked) {
> + int locked = 0;
> struct vectors * vecs = (struct vectors *)data;
>
> pthread_cleanup_push(cleanup_lock, &vecs->lock);
> @@ -491,10 +492,11 @@ parse_cmd (char * cmd, char ** reply, int * len, void * data, int timeout )
> r = 0;
> }
> if (r == 0) {
> + locked = 1;
> pthread_testcancel();
> r = h->fn(cmdvec, reply, len, data);
> }
> - pthread_cleanup_pop(!r);
> + pthread_cleanup_pop(locked);
> } else
> r = h->fn(cmdvec, reply, len, data);
> free_keys(cmdvec);
>
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
