Re: [PATCH v8 08/20] blockjob.h: introduce block_job _locked() APIs

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15:26AM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> +BlockJob *block_job_next(BlockJob *bjob)
>  {
> -    Job *job = job_get(id);
> +    JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
> +    return block_job_next_locked(bjob);
> +}

This seems unsafe for the same reason as job_ref(). How can the caller
be sure bjob is still valid if it doesn't hold the mutex and has no
reference to it?

Maybe the assumption is that the next()/get()/unref() APIs are
GLOBAL_STATE_CODE(), so there can be no race between them?

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature