> On Jan. 19, 2017, 7:52 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > I would suggest clarifying in the commit that there isn't an issue here > > currently (right?), but the code is brittle and we want to make generally > > safer.
I think this isn't a problem because we don't have any intersection between the code using `loop` and the code using `process::finalize`. I'll clarify to mention future-proofing. - Joseph ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55740/#review162384 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 19, 2017, 5:34 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55740/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 19, 2017, 5:34 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Hindman, and Benjamin > Mahler. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The `loop(...)` helper spawns a libprocess actor to execute some > lambda (in a loop, of course). This actor is owned by the > libprocess GC actor, but the body of the `loop` passes a copy of that > pointer into a Future callback. This will potentially segfault if > the actor terminates outside of the `loop`. > > Instead, the `loop` should use the `PID` of the actor. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/loop.hpp > 8bd9715246e72474a35a0f1af94c8a5a3e87dd7a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55740/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Joseph Wu > >
