New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jewel: core: kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset #17626

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 18, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@badone
Contributor

badone commented Sep 11, 2017

backport tracker: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21358

if ceph_logger is deleted earlier than db, it may still be used by db, which cause a segment fault.

Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21336

Signed-off-by: wumingqiao wumingqiao@inspur.com
(cherry picked from commit a5cd03c)

kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset
if ceph_logger is deleted earlier than db, it may still be used by db, which cause a segment fault.

Signed-off-by: wumingqiao <wumingqiao@inspur.com>
(cherry picked from commit a5cd03c)

@badone badone added this to the jewel milestone Sep 11, 2017

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Sep 11, 2017

Contributor

@badone So IIRC this is in lieu of backporting #16553 ?

Contributor

smithfarm commented Sep 11, 2017

@badone So IIRC this is in lieu of backporting #16553 ?

@badone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badone

badone Sep 11, 2017

Contributor

@smithfarm This is a backport of #16553 isn't it?

Contributor

badone commented Sep 11, 2017

@smithfarm This is a backport of #16553 isn't it?

@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title from kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset to jewel: kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset Sep 12, 2017

@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title from jewel: kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset to jewel: core: kv: let ceph_logger destructed after db reset Sep 12, 2017

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Sep 12, 2017

Contributor

@badone Got it, thanks for the clarification. Too many backports buzzing around my head . . .

I guess we should fix this segfault in 10.2.10, eh?

Contributor

smithfarm commented Sep 12, 2017

@badone Got it, thanks for the clarification. Too many backports buzzing around my head . . .

I guess we should fix this segfault in 10.2.10, eh?

@smithfarm smithfarm requested a review from jdurgin Sep 12, 2017

@badone

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badone

badone Sep 12, 2017

Contributor

@smithfarm 10.2.10 would be good unless anyone has any objections.

Contributor

badone commented Sep 12, 2017

@smithfarm 10.2.10 would be good unless anyone has any objections.

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Sep 12, 2017

Contributor

@badone OK

Contributor

smithfarm commented Sep 12, 2017

@badone OK

@smithfarm smithfarm closed this Sep 12, 2017

@smithfarm smithfarm reopened this Sep 13, 2017

@amitkumar50

already merged in latest master

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Sep 18, 2017

Contributor

@jdurgin This PR was included in two rados runs: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20613#note-62

The only thing that worries me about these runs is rados/singleton-nomsgr/{all/11429.yaml rados.yaml} - was not seeing that one fail before.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Sep 18, 2017

@jdurgin This PR was included in two rados runs: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20613#note-62

The only thing that worries me about these runs is rados/singleton-nomsgr/{all/11429.yaml rados.yaml} - was not seeing that one fail before.

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Sep 18, 2017

Contributor

Also, @jdurgin, do we need to hold up 10.2.10 for this?

Contributor

smithfarm commented Sep 18, 2017

Also, @jdurgin, do we need to hold up 10.2.10 for this?

@jdurgin jdurgin merged commit 2a525df into ceph:jewel Sep 18, 2017

4 checks passed

Docs: build check OK - docs built
Details
Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodified Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
make check make check succeeded
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment