On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:51:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 06:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > + mutex_lock(&pause_lock);
> > +
> > + /* The kvm->cpus array contains a null pointer in the last location */
> > + for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> > + if (kvm->cpus[i])
> > + pthread_kill(kvm->cpus[i]->thread, SIGKVMEXIT);
> > + else
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + kvm__continue(kvm);
>
> In this scenario: if we grabbed pause_lock, signaled vcpu0 to exit, and it did
> before we called kvm__continue(), we won't end up releasing pause_lock, which
> might cause a lockup later, no?
Hmm, yeah, maybe that should be an explicit mutex_unlock rather than a
call to kvm__continue.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
