On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM, <cove...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: covener
> Date: Fri Nov 14 12:04:46 2014
> New Revision: 1639614
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1639614
> Log:
> don't call notify_suspend() in a worker thread after
> start_lingering_close_common may have put the socket back
> into the pollset.
>
> If it becomes readable too quickly, cs can be
> free'ed or accessed concurrently.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c
>
[]
> @@ -1138,7 +1141,6 @@ read_request:
>
> if (cs->pub.state == CONN_STATE_LINGER) {
> start_lingering_close_blocking(cs);
> - notify_suspend(cs);
> }
Also, the old code notified unconditionally (too late, but always),
whereas now it will not should ap_start_lingering_close() fail in
start_lingering_close_blocking().
Shouldn't we :
Index: server/mpm/event/event.c
===================================================================
--- server/mpm/event/event.c (revision 1642684)
+++ server/mpm/event/event.c (working copy)
@@ -895,6 +895,8 @@ static int start_lingering_close_common(event_conn
static int start_lingering_close_blocking(event_conn_state_t *cs)
{
if (ap_start_lingering_close(cs->c)) {
+ cs->c->sbh = NULL;
+ notify_suspend(cs);
ap_push_pool(worker_queue_info, cs->p);
return 0;
}
return start_lingering_close_common(cs, 1);
}
?
