Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > On 03/19/2008 10:22 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:01:35 +0100 >> Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> >>> Does the following patch for PR44641 attached by the reporter makes >>> sense? >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21691 >>> >>> I am a little bit worried that we could use the wrong pool in >>> register_hooks. So some additional eyes please. >> >> Looks to me like he's right about the bug, and you're right > > No doubt about this. > >> about the pool. Though the pool usage is pretty negligible, >> so we could just turn a blind eye to it. >> >> If we want to be fussy, we could create a subpool and destroy >> it in post_config. >> > > I am *not* worried about some sort of memory leak with the pool used > by register_hooks. It is the contrary: I am not sure if the register_hooks > pools gets destroyed / cleared too *early* or in between so that we are > pointing > to invalid memory. So please some eyes on this aspect. What happens is that a module must register itself during config, and remove itself from the hash during post-config. Hopefully during the re-config phase it replaces it's own hash registration. If this doesn't happen and the module is removed from the list during a graceful restart, there will still be a hash entry into it. It's possible to do a pconf teardown resetting the hash, but if we reset while modules are unregistering themselves, we are back to the original fault.