On 07/05/2013 03:45 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 08:35:21AM -0400, Yonit Halperin wrote:
Ack. Thanks! We have recently associated this problem with some
opened bugs we have. I believe Uri is working on a patch for a
similar fix to the red_pipes.* routines in red_worker.
https
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 08:35:21AM -0400, Yonit Halperin wrote:
> Ack. Thanks! We have recently associated this problem with some
> opened bugs we have. I believe Uri is working on a patch for a
> similar fix to the red_pipes.* routines in red_worker.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=88
Hi,
On 07/05/2013 09:11 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, both red_channel_pipes_add_type() and
red_channel_pipes_add_empty_msg() use plaing RING_FOREACH() which is not
safe versus removals from the ring within the loop body.
Thanks for the patch, applied and pushed.
Regards,
Hans
_
Ack. Thanks! We have recently associated this problem with some opened
bugs we have. I believe Uri is working on a patch for a similar fix to
the red_pipes.* routines in red_worker.
On 07/05/2013 03:11 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, both red_channel_pipes_add_type() and
red_channel_pipes_
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:11:46PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> Currently, both red_channel_pipes_add_type() and
> red_channel_pipes_add_empty_msg() use plaing RING_FOREACH() which is not
> safe versus removals from the ring within the loop body.
>
> Although it's rare, such a removal can occur in
Currently, both red_channel_pipes_add_type() and
red_channel_pipes_add_empty_msg() use plaing RING_FOREACH() which is not
safe versus removals from the ring within the loop body.
Although it's rare, such a removal can occur in both cases. In the case
of red_channel_pipes_add_type() we have:
r
