On 14/06/2014 7:57 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 04/25/2014 01:58 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 25/04/2014 12:46 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> Do not leak implicit ACLs during reconfigure. >>> >>> Many ACLs implicitly created by Squid when grouping multiple ACLs were >>> not destroyed because those implicit ACLs where not covered by the >>> global ACL registry used for ACL destruction. >>> >>> See also: r13210 which did not go far enough because it incorrectly >>> assumed that all InnerNode() children are aclRegister()ed and, hence, >>> will be centrally freed. > > >> -0. > > Is this a "negative" vote from "Squid3 voting" rules point of view? > http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MergeProcedure#Squid3_Voting
It is "I don't like it but not objecting to a commit if you do it". > > >> I believe we should move to reference counting ACLs instead of >> continuing to work around these edge cases. > > I agree that reference counting is an overall better design for ACLs, of > course. However, since refcounting ACLs would be a large change that > nobody has volunteered to implement in the foreseeable future (AFAIK), I > suggest that this [significant] leak fix should go in now. > > Any other votes/opinions? > > > Thank you, > > Alex. >
