On 04/02/2014 06:58 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:12PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>>> When rolling back the lockfile, call close_lock_file() so that the
>>> lock_file's fd field gets set back to -1. This could help prevent
>>> confusion in the face of hypothetical future programming errors.
>> This also solves a race. We could be in the middle of rollback_lock_file
>> when we get a signal, and double-close. It's probably not a big deal,
>> though, since nobody could have opened a new descriptor in the interim
>> that got the same number (so the second close will just fail silently).
>> Still, this seems like a definite improvement.
> This is probably related to my comments on 2/22, but is "fd" the
> only thing that has a non-zero safe value? Perhaps lock_file_init()
> that clears the structure fields to 0/NULL and fd to -1, and a
> convenience function lock_file_alloc() that does xmalloc() and then
> calls lock_file_init() may help us a bit when the lockfile structure
> is reused?
The first use of a lock_file object necessarily passes through
lock_file(). The only precondition for that function is that the
on_list field is zero, which is satisfied by a xcalloc()ed object.
Subsequent uses of a lock_file object must *not* zero the object.
lock_file objects are added to the lock_file_list and never removed. So
zeroing a lock_file object would discard the rest of the linked list.
But subsequent uses must also pass through lock_file(), which sees that
on_list is set, and assumes that the object is in a self-consistent
state as left by commit_lock_file() or rollback_lock_file().
At least that's how it is supposed to work. But lock_file objects are
in fact not cleaned up correctly in all circumstances. The next version
of this patch series will work to fix that.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html