[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v8 08/20] blockjob.h: introduce block_job _locked() APIs
From: |
Stefan Hajnoczi |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v8 08/20] blockjob.h: introduce block_job _locked() APIs |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:58:37 +0100 |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15:26AM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> +BlockJob *block_job_next(BlockJob *bjob)
> {
> - Job *job = job_get(id);
> + JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
> + return block_job_next_locked(bjob);
> +}
This seems unsafe for the same reason as job_ref(). How can the caller
be sure bjob is still valid if it doesn't hold the mutex and has no
reference to it?
Maybe the assumption is that the next()/get()/unref() APIs are
GLOBAL_STATE_CODE(), so there can be no race between them?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [PATCH v8 08/20] blockjob.h: introduce block_job _locked() APIs,
Stefan Hajnoczi <=