lhotari commented on code in PR #22760: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22760#discussion_r1610498528
########## pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/protocol/ByteBufPair.java: ########## @@ -122,38 +123,22 @@ public void write(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Object msg, ChannelPromise promise) // ByteBuf are automatically released after a write. If the ByteBufPair ref count is increased and it // gets written multiple times, the individual buffers refcount should be reflected as well. try { - ctx.write(b.getFirst().retainedDuplicate(), ctx.voidPromise()); - ctx.write(b.getSecond().retainedDuplicate(), promise); + ctx.write(readOnlyRetainedDuplicate(b.getFirst()), ctx.voidPromise()); + ctx.write(readOnlyRetainedDuplicate(b.getSecond()), promise); } finally { ReferenceCountUtil.safeRelease(b); } } else { ctx.write(msg, promise); } } - } - - @Sharable - @SuppressWarnings("checkstyle:JavadocType") - public static class CopyingEncoder extends ChannelOutboundHandlerAdapter { - @Override - public void write(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Object msg, ChannelPromise promise) throws Exception { - if (msg instanceof ByteBufPair) { - ByteBufPair b = (ByteBufPair) msg; - // Some handlers in the pipeline will modify the bytebufs passed in to them (i.e. SslHandler). - // For these handlers, we need to pass a copy of the buffers as the source buffers may be cached - // for multiple requests. - try { - ctx.write(b.getFirst().copy(), ctx.voidPromise()); - ctx.write(b.getSecond().copy(), promise); - } finally { - ReferenceCountUtil.safeRelease(b); - } - } else { - ctx.write(msg, promise); - } + // .asReadOnly() is needed to prevent SslHandler from modifying the input buffers. + private static ByteBuf readOnlyRetainedDuplicate(ByteBuf buf) { + // If the buffer is already read-only, .asReadOnly() will return the same buffer. + // That's why the additional .retainedDuplicate() is needed to ensure that the returned buffer + // has independent readIndex and writeIndex. + return buf.asReadOnly().retainedDuplicate(); Review Comment: > if (buf == null || buf.readableBytes() <= 0) { > return Unpooled.EMPTY_BUFFER; > } I don't think that nulls should be tolerated when nulls shouldn't be passed as input. For the readableBytes() == 0 optimization, is that needed? -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org