[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: refcounts assertion

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: refcounts assertion
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:52:23 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Justus Winter, on Mon 07 Mar 2016 11:40:26 +0100, wrote:
> I have a patch that revamps it so that we avoid the copying.

How would it look like?  Does that mean that the fun would be called
with the htable lock held?

> The thing with the patch is (iirc) that it requires the called
> function to be idempotent, which afaics every function used with the
> _ports_bucket_class_iterate were.

That's however quite a difference in what interface we provide.  I
wonder whether we will not need more at some point.

> > Just using refcounts_unsafe_ref is most probably not a solution since
> > the node is on its way out, the function called by the iterator will
> > most probably get it all wrong on a node being destroyed.
> > 
> > Another way would be as attached: just skip nodes which didn't have any
> > reference.  I however don't know libports enough to say whether that's
> > correct behavior for libports or not:
> That looks like a brown-paper fix that could easily use-after-free.

No: either another thread got 0,0, and this thread gets 1,0 and does
nothing (and since it holds _ports_htable_lock, the pi is not freed
yet since that other thread can not have gotten up to the end of

Or other threads get !=0,0, and this thread gets !=1,0, adds a
reference, and from there no other thread can get 0,0 so it's safe.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]