Custom Search
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 19:11 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > So the WARN_ON sequence is obviously wrong, if it's critical it should > be a BUG(), if not we shouldn't dereference what we know to be null. The > following patch avoids the NULL pointer dereference in the WARN_ON. With > this patch the NULL WARN_ON makes it to the console, and test runs to > completion with no obvious negative side effects. I'm only posting for > reference at this point, as while this may be necessary, it isn't the > right "solution". I've been slogging through the locking under the assumption that pi_blocked_on->task pointing to a stranger is very bad juju, but you're right, the only obviously evil consequence I see is tripping over the fallout in WARN_ON(). > Tonight/Tomorrow I'll review the rtmutex and futex code to try and fully > understand (again) the usage of pi_blocked_on and if we need to avoid > this scenario, or if we need to handle it "gracefully". I hope you find it, I'm going blind crawling in endless circles :) -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |
 |