Justus Winter, le Thu 28 Aug 2014 12:04:24 +0200, a écrit :
> Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-08-27 21:53:39)
> > Justus Winter, le Mon 05 May 2014 14:10:48 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I believe I have found two problems in the glibc.
> > >
> > > 1. hurd_check_cancel takes 'lock', and then asserts that
>
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-08-27 21:53:39)
> Hello,
>
> Justus Winter, le Mon 05 May 2014 14:10:48 +0200, a écrit :
> > I believe I have found two problems in the glibc.
> >
> > 1. hurd_check_cancel takes 'lock', and then asserts that
> >'critical_section_lock' is not taken. However, hurd
Hello,
Justus Winter, le Mon 05 May 2014 14:10:48 +0200, a écrit :
> I believe I have found two problems in the glibc.
>
> 1. hurd_check_cancel takes 'lock', and then asserts that
>'critical_section_lock' is not taken. However, hurd_thread_cancel
>first takes 'critical_section_lock' and
/* Hi :)
I believe I have found two problems in the glibc.
1. hurd_check_cancel takes 'lock', and then asserts that
'critical_section_lock' is not taken. However, hurd_thread_cancel
first takes 'critical_section_lock' and then 'lock'. This program
demonstrates this by spinning on both