linux-user: Fix locking order in fork_start()
Our locking order is that the tb lock should be taken inside the mmap_lock, but fork_start() grabs locks the other way around. This means that if a heavily multithreaded guest process (such as Java) calls fork() it can deadlock, with the thread that called fork() stuck in fork_start() with the tb lock and waiting for the mmap lock, but some other thread in tb_find() with the mmap lock and waiting for the tb lock. The cpu_list_lock() should also always be taken last, not first. Fix this by making fork_start() grab the locks in the right order. The order in which we drop locks doesn't matter, so we leave fork_end() the way it is. Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> Message-Id: <1512397331-15238-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
52483b067c
commit
024949caf3
@ -127,9 +127,9 @@ int cpu_get_pic_interrupt(CPUX86State *env)
|
||||
/* Make sure everything is in a consistent state for calling fork(). */
|
||||
void fork_start(void)
|
||||
{
|
||||
cpu_list_lock();
|
||||
qemu_mutex_lock(&tb_ctx.tb_lock);
|
||||
mmap_fork_start();
|
||||
qemu_mutex_lock(&tb_ctx.tb_lock);
|
||||
cpu_list_lock();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
void fork_end(int child)
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user