diff --git a/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c b/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c
index 13aed8028e65..1a50df1af167 100644
--- a/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c
+++ b/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
  * this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.   Poul-Henning Kamp
  * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *
- * $Id: malloc.c,v 1.39 1998/06/18 09:13:16 peter Exp $
+ * $Id: malloc.c,v 1.40 1998/09/19 20:55:36 alex Exp $
  *
  */
 
@@ -1064,6 +1064,7 @@ malloc(size_t size)
     if (malloc_active++) {
 	wrtwarning("recursive call.\n");
         malloc_active--;
+	/*THREAD_UNLOCK();*/	/* XXX */
 	return (0);
     }
     if (!malloc_started)
@@ -1087,6 +1088,20 @@ free(void *ptr)
     malloc_func = " in free():";
     if (malloc_active++) {
 	wrtwarning("recursive call.\n");
+	/*
+	 * XXX
+	 * Ideally the next two lines would be gone and free() would
+	 * exit below.  Unfortunately our spinlock implementation
+	 * allows a particular thread to obtain a lock multiple times
+	 * without counting how many times said operation has been
+	 * performed.  The practical upshot of which is a single unlock
+	 * causes all locks to be undone at once.  For this reason,
+	 * we return without performing an unlock in the case of
+	 * recursion (see also the commented out THREAD_UNLOCK calls
+	 * in malloc & realloc).
+	 */
+	malloc_active--;
+	return;
     } else {
 	ifree(ptr);
 	UTRACE(ptr, 0, 0);
@@ -1106,6 +1121,7 @@ realloc(void *ptr, size_t size)
     if (malloc_active++) {
 	wrtwarning("recursive call.\n");
         malloc_active--;
+	/*THREAD_UNLOCK();*/	/* XXX */
 	return (0);
     }
     if (ptr && !malloc_started) {