<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Concurrent call to glClientWaitSync results in segfault in one of the waiters."
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c46">Comment # 46</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Concurrent call to glClientWaitSync results in segfault in one of the waiters."
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172">bug 98172</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:michel@daenzer.net" title="Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net>"> <span class="fn">Michel Dänzer</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Suzuki, Shinji from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c44">comment #44</a>)
<span class="quote">> >=> r600_fence_reference and st_client_wait_sync continue working
> > with the fence object memory, which was already freed by thread
> > 1.
>
> I see that, since so->fence is duplicated at the beginning of the function,
> destruction of the fence object would never happen in the block covered by
> cmpxchg. If it ever happens then that would be by the 'unref' before the
> function exit.</span >
Right, but there's nothing preventing that from happening before
r600_fence_reference in thread 0 calls pipe_reference. Mixing pipe_reference
and p_atomic_cmpxchg like this isn't safe.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>