> On Oct. 17, 2024, 6:14 a.m., Vyom Tiwari wrote:
> > agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/util/ServiceTags.java
> > Line 261 (original), 261 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/75232/diff/1/?file=2293802#file2293802line261>
> >
> >     Is this change intentional?. I can see we are incrementing the 
> > reference count "cachedTag.right++ at line 301".

Yes, this is intentional. cachedTag.right is the reference-count, and gets 
incremented at #301 only when another instance refers to this tag.


- Madhan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/75232/#review226976
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 17, 2024, 1:29 a.m., Madhan Neethiraj wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/75232/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 17, 2024, 1:29 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for ranger, Abhishek  Kumar, Anand Nadar, Asit Vadhavkar, 
> Fateh Singh, Abhay Kulkarni, Pradeep Agrawal, Radhika Kundam, Ramesh Mani, 
> and Sailaja Polavarapu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: RANGER-4956
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-4956
> 
> 
> Repository: ranger
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> - dedupTags() on a ServiceTag instance can result in infinite loop when its 
> cachedTags is already populated (by an earlier call or via a copy 
> constructor), as it tries to replace a tag with itself. Updated to avoid such 
> replacement.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/util/ServiceTags.java 
> cc2ebe53a 
>   
> agents-common/src/test/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/util/TestServiceTags.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/75232/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> - added unit tests to verify dedupTags()
> - verified that all unit tests pass
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Madhan Neethiraj
> 
>

Reply via email to