[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#46859: marked as done (hurd_thread_cancel trips assertion)

Your message dated Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:27:09 +0200
with message-id <20140827192709.GA10971@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
and subject line Re: hurd_thread_cancel trips assertion
has caused the Debian Bug report #46859,
regarding hurd_thread_cancel trips assertion
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
46859: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=46859
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libc0.2
Version: N/A
Severity: critical

Note: I'm sending this report such that this bug will enter the Debian
BTS.  The bug has been discussed before on bug-hurd and Roland will
(eventually) look into it.  I don't think any immedeate action needs
to be taken by any other party.  A summary of the discussion on
bug-hurd follows.


I caught the term server on /dev/console failing the following
assertion in hurd_thread_cancel() (hurd/thread-cancel.c:46):

  assert (! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock));

Since there is no guarantee that the target thread is not in a
critical section, there is obviously something wrong here.

Thomas suggested that there is no need to take the critical section
lock.  I believe that taking the critical section lock is necessary to
prevent the target thread from entering a signal handler.  Roland will
look into the problem.


Mark

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 2.9-27

This was fixed a long time ago, by
patches/hurd-i386/tg-thread-cancel.diff.

Samuel

--- End Message ---
Reply to: