Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 77382 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 22:09:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 22:09:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 18876 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2008 22:09:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 18798 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2008 22:09:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 18754 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2008 22:09:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:09:33 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.22] (HELO smtpauth16.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:08:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 15380 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2008 22:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (71.239.140.137) by smtpauth16.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.22) with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2008 22:08:53 -0000 Message-ID: <47E18EF5.1050704@rowe-clan.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:08:53 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: PR44641: Does patch make sense References: <47E17F2F.4080508@apache.org> <20080319212220.3814b5a0@grimnir> <47E189A3.4010706@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <47E189A3.4010706@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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.