_writer: fix unsafe finally clause (bug 728580) #560
Merged
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
zmedico
force-pushed
the
bug_728580_unsafe_remove_writer
branch
from
f86123f
to
380fc12
Compare
In the coroutine finally clause, do not call remove_writer in cases where fd has been closed and then re-allocated to a concurrent coroutine as in bug 716636. Also, assume that the caller will put the file in non-blocking mode and close the file when done, so that this function is suitable for use within a loop. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/728580 Reviewed-by: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>
zmedico
force-pushed
the
bug_728580_unsafe_remove_writer
branch
from
380fc12
to
92be5a0
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In the coroutine finally clause, do not call remove_writer in cases
where fd has been closed and then re-allocated to a concurrent
coroutine as in bug 716636.
Also, assume that the caller will put the file in non-blocking mode
and close the file when done, so that this function is suitable for
use within a loop.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/728580
Signed-off-by: Zac Medico zmedico@gentoo.org