From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix double-release of spinlock |
Date: | 2024-07-29 16:45:19 |
Message-ID: | 2803949.1722271519@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dunno, is that the only extra check that the --disable-spinlocks
>> implementation is providing?
> I think it also provides the (valuable!) check that spinlocks were actually
> initialized. But that again seems like something we'd be better off adding
> more general infrastructure for - nobody runs --disable-spinlocks locally, we
> shouldn't need to run this on the buildfarm to find problems like this.
Hmm, but how? One of the things we gave up by nuking HPPA support
was that that platform's representation of an initialized, free
spinlock was not all-zeroes, so that it'd catch this type of problem.
I think all the remaining platforms do use zeroes, so it's hard to
see how anything short of valgrind would be likely to catch it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-07-29 16:51:54 | Detect double-release of spinlock |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-07-29 16:40:26 | Re: pgsql: Fix double-release of spinlock |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-07-29 16:51:54 | Detect double-release of spinlock |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-07-29 16:40:26 | Re: pgsql: Fix double-release of spinlock |