obnox at samba.org
Tue Jul 28 16:48:05 MDT 2009
tridge at samba.org wrote:
> > 2. With Tridge's changes, all users of talloc_free() need to
> > be reviewed. Those that conciously want to free a reference
> > need changing, but those callers that use talloc_free()
> > on simply allocated talloc contexts are potentially broken
> > too, because they need to know whether there are references,
> > so they need changing, too.
> > 3. With the changes proposed by Sam and Metze, the "naive" users
> > of talloc/talloc_free are ok as they are. But the users of
> > references that want to free the reference need to be changed.
> > Have I misunderstood anything basic here?
> yes, I think you have. The cases 2 and 3 above are reversed :-)
Sorry for being ignorant, but I don't see why:
* If I understood your change correctly, your patch changed talloc_free()
to fails when called on a pointer with more than one
parent, i.e. with references.
This does mean that it breaks the basic use of
talloc()/talloc_free() when someone takes references inbetween.
This means that all callers of talloc_free() need to be reviewed
and possibly changed to something else. Doesn't it?
* On the other hand side, with the change Metze proposed,
talloc_free() will succeed if called on the original parent, so
the basic users can be kept as they are. But the callers of
talloc_free() that call it with a reference, must be changed to
use talloc_unreference() instead.
This is what I meant above. What is my misconception here?
> The point of my changes was that the review would happen automatically
> and be absolutely accurate as we are catching all the cases where
> there are problems using the logic in the code. The only places where
> semantics change are all caught by the warning I added. So if no
> warning is produced then we know the code is doing something that is
This is of course a brilliant technical realization.
But couldn't the same technique be applied to Sam's/Metze's
> For Sam's proposed changes there are no such guarantees. All code
> needs to be manually reviewed, even the ones that seem naive on first
When voting in favour of their approach I was not referring to
the complete implementation including aborts and so on, but
the conceptual change to the behaviour of talloc_free() and
> When I added the warning to my changes it took Andrew and me
> quite a while to even find the cause of the warning in some cases, as
> they were spread across multiple files. Some of them looked "obviously
> correct" but they weren't.
> Manual inspection of massive code bases does not work for anything but
> the simplest cases. This is not a simple case.
I agree 100%.
> > With Tridge's changes, we need to change even more callers than
> > with the Sam/Metze approach.
> no. I believe we have already identified all the cases we need to
> change for the patches I've put in. There may be some more lurking,
> but if there are we will find them as soon as they trigger.
But this does not seem to be robust to me:
When a user of talloc_free() is safe now, it may fail in the
future, when an implementation of a function called changes
to add references to the context. But IMHO this should not matter.
The discussion of the basic design continues in other mails,
so I stop here now.
Tridge: Sorry for insisting. I am reviving this discussion
again and again now, because I want to understand, and I think
we need to come to a solution that is satisfactory
from the existing and future users point of view as well as
regarding the design of talloc. And therefore, I think we
need to find a solution on this higher level before loosing
ourselves in techincal details.
Cheers - Michael
> With the changes proposed by Sam we have no idea how many there are,
> and we have no way of measuring whether we've found them.
> Sam's changes reverse the sense of talloc_free on a pointer with
> references, with no warning. My changes ban the use of talloc_free on
> references, with a warning.
> > But the way in which the code reacts to the error is not implied
> > by the design that the respective approach implements.
> > We could well change metze's code to thow the same sort of
> > error messages instead of aborting. Just like yours.
> If that is the proposal then I'll look at it. As it is, the patches
> reverse existing behaviour with no warning. Sam has been pushing this
> as one of the advantages of his patch as he proposes it fixes things
> with no pain. That is not true.
> > I still think that the benefit of the sam/metze aproach is that
> > the basic users need no change. And the users of talloc_reference
> > need to be audited and changed.
> It is a 'basic user' that does the dereference of freed memory in the
> example I posted. The basic user does not know that someone else has
> taken a reference deep in a library routine.
> Cheers, Tridge
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical