From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 28 23:40:05 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D5F716A4CE; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:40:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 28EE843D45; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:40:05 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	i9SNe1kJ003347;	Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <20041028232946.GA10099@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0410281936570.5783-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: re@freebsd.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Infinite loop bug in libc_r on 4.x with condition variables a
 nd signals
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:40:05 -0000

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Ken Smith wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:49:28PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > re, how about it?
>
> Give me an hour or two, yesterday was the first I saw of this so I
> need to research it a bit.  Is that OK?
>
> > >>>>>FWIW, we are having (I think) the same problem on 5.3 with
> > >>>>>libpthread. The
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>panic there is in the mutex code about an assertion failing
> > >>>>>because a thread
> > >>>>>is on a syncq when it is not supposed to be.
>
> Umm.  Your patch changes only user-level code, correct?  Please tell
> me you can only panic a debugging kernel with user-level code issues.

User-level panic by some assertions in libpthread which are caused
by a race condition that this patch closes.

-- 
Dan Eischen