Correctly lock fds when closing old listeners #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
`mu` is used to protect all reads and writes of the `fds` map in `Fds`. `closeUnused` is wriitng to the map, and so needs a lock. Oops :( The confusing naming of 'lockMutations' made me think this was a leaky abstraction that held the lock between function calls, but it's not that, it's just setting an informational message and 'locked' boolean (also protected by 'mu'), 'mu' itself still needs to be held. The naming of those methods is clearly confusing since it confused me, but making more drastic changes seems like it's best left to another PR.
jtszalay
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
muis used to protect all reads and writes of thefdsmap inFds.closeUnusedis writing to the map, and so needs a lock. Oops :(The confusing naming of 'lockMutations' made me think this was a leaky abstraction that held the lock between function calls, but it's not that, it's just setting an informational message and 'locked' boolean (also protected by 'mu'), 'mu' itself still needs to be held.
The naming of those methods is clearly confusing since it confused me, but making more drastic changes seems like it's best left to another PR.