On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
>
> Why I wanted a BUG: When you get a ref to an object without holding a
> lock you get a potentially unsafe pointer (to which we will be writing).
> If the context object memory is freed, and we write to it, we have a
> potential to late scribb
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:44:22AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:40:06AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:27:32PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:29 -0700
> > > Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because our context re
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:40:06AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:27:32PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:29 -0700
> > Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >
> > > Because our context refcounting doesn't grab a ref at lookup time, it is
> > > unsafe to do so wi
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:27:32PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:29 -0700
> Ben Widawsky wrote:
>
> > Because our context refcounting doesn't grab a ref at lookup time, it is
> > unsafe to do so without the lock.
> >
> > NOTE: We don't have an easy way to put the asserti
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:29 -0700
Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Because our context refcounting doesn't grab a ref at lookup time, it is
> unsafe to do so without the lock.
>
> NOTE: We don't have an easy way to put the assertion in the lookup
> function which is where this really belongs. Context swit
Because our context refcounting doesn't grab a ref at lookup time, it is
unsafe to do so without the lock.
NOTE: We don't have an easy way to put the assertion in the lookup
function which is where this really belongs. Context switching is good
enough because it actually asserts even more correctn
