On 2015/02/07 17:06:57, Yang wrote:
On 2015/02/07 05:51:36, Yang wrote:
> On 2015/02/06 15:13:00, Yang wrote:
>
> I added even more checks and found a bug in the way we encode back
references
to
> large objects. It could explain the observed bug. Back references to
large
> objects is encoded as index, but wrongly shifted by 3 bits (or 2 on
32-bit
> platforms). Back reference to the first large object would be encoded
correctly,
> but back references to other large objects would be wrong and point to
large
> object pages that either do not exist, or have been allocated, but not
yet
> deserialized into.
>
> VerifyBackReference adds a slight overhead to serialization (about
3-5%),
but
> let's have it in there at least for now. We can turn it into a DCHECK at
some
> later point if we are confident that this bug is gone.
Nevermind. This does not fix an existing bug. I introduced one during
refactoring to add checks, and mistook it for an existing one.
Nevertheless,
adding those checks should help.
I uploaded crrev.com/907013002, which should find data corruptions.
Nevertheless
I'd like to add the check at least for debug mode.
https://codereview.chromium.org/909493002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
