Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018-02-22 01:36 PM, Markus Ongyerth wrote: On 2018/2月/22 12:31, Derek Foreman wrote: On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote: On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote: On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018/2月/22 12:31, Derek Foreman wrote: > On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > > On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote: > > > On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018/2月/22 04:53, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi ongy, > > On 22 February 2018 at 16:03, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > > On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > >> > The code was buggy the whole time. Just

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018-02-22 10:48 AM, Markus Ongyerth wrote: On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote: On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would need patches to

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

Hi ongy, On 22 February 2018 at 16:03, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: >> > The code was buggy the whole time. Just because it was never triggered, >> > does >> > not imply

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018/2月/22 09:34, Derek Foreman wrote: > On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > > > > It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would > > > > need patches to weston, enlightenment,

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018/2月/22 02:58, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > >> It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would > >> need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a > >> use-after-free during the

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

On 2018-02-22 08:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: Hi, On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a use-after-free during the signal emit? Now

Re: [PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

Hi, On 22 February 2018 at 14:14, Markus Ongyerth wrote: >> It seems that this patch makes that assumption invalid, and we would >> need patches to weston, enlightenment, and mutter to prevent a >> use-after-free during the signal emit? Now I'm seeing valgrind errors >> on E and

[PATH] core: implement a safe wl_signal_emit

> Since a destroy signal inidicates the object is utterly dead, I don't think > it's unreasonable for users to have assumed that they don't have to clean up > their listener link. It's *never* going to fire again, so why should > anything need to be removed? This only implies that the signal