On 29/11/2013 1:33 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > Hello, > > The attached patch destroys ACLs in the reverse order of creation to > avoid destruction segfaults during reconfiguration. I could reproduce > segfaults in v3.3-based code. I saw access to the already destroyed ACL > memory in trunk; I suspect trunk did not segfault by luck as the bug > appears to be there. > > Group ACLs created later may use other ACLs created earlier. A group ACL > must be deleted first so that its AclDeleter can safely access > registration status (and avoid double deletion) of the ACLs it uses. > Since ACLs are remembered (in Config.aclList) using a singly-linked > list, it is difficult to change their deletion order. Instead, we > changed their listing order from FIFO to LIFO. > > As far as I can tell, the ACL storage order is not important for the > rest of the code but please let me know if I missed any cases. > > > Thank you, > > Alex. >
I think we really should be ref-counting these pointers to make it a bit more flexible and ensure that they do not get erased while in use. +0. I have no objections for this going in now while we consider the above. Amos
