On 13 January 2012 15:46, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > When entering the guest we take a lock to ensure that nobody else messes > with our TB chaining while we're doing it. If we get a segfault inside that > code, we manage to work on, but will not unlock the lock. > > This patch forces unlocking of that lock in the segv handler. I'm not sure > this is the right approach though. Maybe we should rather make sure we don't > segfault in the code? I would greatly appreciate someone more intelligible > than me to look at this :).
A segfault while we're walking the TB chains in QEMU C code? That's just a bug (and we know we have one there) -- we should fix it rather than papering over it like this. -- PMM
