[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5814) concurrent access to connections
> Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> test036-meta-concurrency just crashed with fresh HEAD code.
>> I suppose that's the same as this ITS.
> Looks like. However, now I thought my FIXME were little more than a
> precaution. In fact, right now the only places where c_struct_state can
> be modified are protected by a mutex on connections_mutex; this should
> prevent changing the state of a connection during a connection_next()
> call. Do you see a thread waiting on
> ldap_pvt_thread_mutex_lock(&connections_mutex ); at connection.c:427 or
> connection.c:514? If that's the case, we probably need to move
> c->c_conn_state = SLAP_C_INACTIVE; inside the mutex in order to be able
> to safely assert in connection_next(). Is it worth?
That should not be necessary. c_struct_state is supposed to be protected by
connections_mutex, while c_conn_state is supposed to be protected by
c->c_mutex. As already described in the comments at the top of the file.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/