On 11/30/2013 05:35 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > 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.
> 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. Yes, of course. Refcounting would also improve the AclMatchedName-related code significantly. I cannot volunteer to do the required legwork at this time, unfortunately. > +0. I have no objections for this going in now while we consider the above. Will commit soon unless somebody else finds a reason not to. Thank you, Alex.
