zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [zookeeper] anmolnar commented on a change in pull request #831: ZOOKEEPER-3286: xid wrap-around causes connection loss/segfault when hitting predefined XIDs
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:30:08 GMT
anmolnar commented on a change in pull request #831: ZOOKEEPER-3286: xid wrap-around causes
connection loss/segfault when hitting predefined XIDs
URL: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/831#discussion_r266710758
 
 

 ##########
 File path: zookeeper-client/zookeeper-client-c/src/mt_adaptor.c
 ##########
 @@ -502,13 +502,13 @@ int32_t fetch_and_add(volatile int32_t* operand, int incr)
 }
 
 // make sure the static xid is initialized before any threads started
-__attribute__((constructor)) int32_t get_xid()
+int32_t get_xid()
 {
-    static int32_t xid = -1;
-    if (xid == -1) {
-        xid = time(0);
-    }
-    return fetch_and_add(&xid,1);
+    static int32_t xid = 1;
+
+    // The XID returned should not be negative to avoid collisions
+    // with reserved XIDs, such as AUTH_XID or SET_WATCHES_XID.
+    return fetch_and_add(&xid,1) & ~(1<<31);
 
 Review comment:
   I don't think there's anything wrong with using `0` as `xid`, but I would stick to consistent
behaviour between clients anyway.
   So, I vote for option 2., but let's see what other people think.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Mime
View raw message