[SPARK-29971][CORE][2.4] Fix buffer leaks in TransportFrameDecoder/TransportCipher
#26660
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ortCipher` - Correctly release `ByteBuf` in `TransportCipher` in all cases - Move closing / releasing logic to `handlerRemoved(...)` so we are guaranteed that is always called. We need to carefully manage the ownership / lifecycle of `ByteBuf` instances so we don't leak any of these. We did not correctly do this in all cases: - when end up in invalid cipher state. - when partial data was received and the channel is closed before the full frame is decoded Fixes netty/netty#9784. No. Pass the newly added UTs. Closes apache#26609 from normanmaurer/leaks_2_4. Authored-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com>
|
Thank you, @normanmaurer . |
|
ok to test |
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
TransportFrameDecoder/TransportCipher
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
TransportFrameDecoder/TransportCipherTransportFrameDecoder/TransportCipher
|
Test build #114393 has finished for PR 26660 at commit
|
|
cc @vanzin |
|
Merging to 2.4. |
vanzin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2019
…ransportCipher` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? - Correctly release `ByteBuf` in `TransportCipher` in all cases - Move closing / releasing logic to `handlerRemoved(...)` so we are guaranteed that is always called. - Correctly release `frameBuf` it is not null when the handler is removed (and so also when the channel becomes inactive) ### Why are the changes needed? We need to carefully manage the ownership / lifecycle of `ByteBuf` instances so we don't leak any of these. We did not correctly do this in all cases: - when end up in invalid cipher state. - when partial data was received and the channel is closed before the full frame is decoded Fixes netty/netty#9784. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the newly added UTs. Closes #26660 from normanmaurer/leak_2_4. Authored-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Vanzin <vanzin@cloudera.com>
|
Thank you so much, @vanzin and @normanmaurer ! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
ByteBufinTransportCipherin all caseshandlerRemoved(...)so we are guaranteed that is always called.frameBufit is not null when the handler is removed (and so also when the channel becomes inactive)Why are the changes needed?
We need to carefully manage the ownership / lifecycle of
ByteBufinstances so we don't leak any of these. We did not correctly do this in all cases:Fixes netty/netty#9784.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Pass the newly added UTs.