petenewcomb opened a new pull request, #40654:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/40654
<!--
Thanks for opening a pull request!
If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how
to contribute here:
* [New Contributor's
Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request)
* [Contributing
Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html)
If this is not a [minor
PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes).
Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub?
https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose
Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the
[Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.)
of the Apache Arrow project.
Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?
GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
or
MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports:
PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
-->
### Rationale for this change
See #40630
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
### What changes are included in this PR?
1. Added `FlushWithFooter` method to *file.Writer
2. To support `FlushWithFooter`, refactored `Close` in a way that changes
the order of operations in two ways:
a. closure of open row group writers is now done after using `defer` to
ensure closure of the sink, instead of before
b. wiping out of encryption keys is now done by the same deferred
function, ensuring that it happens even upon error
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
-->
### Are these changes tested?
`file_writer_test.go` has been extended to cover `FlushWithFooter` in a
manner equivalent to the existing coverage.
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are
they covered by existing tests)?
-->
### Are there any user-facing changes?
Only the addition of a new public method as described above. No breaking
changes to any existing public interfaces, unless the two minor
order-of-operation changes described above are somehow a problem.
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line
below and explain which changes are breaking.
-->
<!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** -->
<!--
Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix
either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid
data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API
contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect
users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors
don't count, since those are usually obvious.
-->
<!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** -->
I'm not sure it's a critical fix, but one of the minor changes described
above may reduce the likelihood that an attack could inject an error (e.g., an
I/O error) to prevent an encryption key from being wiped from memory.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
