On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:53:12AM +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > On 2016-03-01 11:25, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >>On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 11:19 +0200, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > >>> > >>>My first reaction is that why is the pstream object reference counted? > >>> > > > >Seems this was just a regular convention rather than a conscious > >design decision. This is evidenced by the fact of having only > >__two__ pa_pstream_ref() calls in the entire tree. At pstream.c > >do_pstream_read_write() and in the same file at srb_callback(). > >In both places they're just a ref/unref couple done at local > >context. > > I recently added the one in srb_callback for a good reason: > > commit f277f2c5094fb32c5d879923960eb807b3b1c535 > Author: David Henningsson <david.henningsson at canonical.com> > Date: Fri Oct 16 22:12:32 2015 +0200 > > pstream: Fix use-after-free in srb_callback > > ...please make sure this bug does not reappear if you change things around > :-) > Sure. The pools will be reference counted, so hopefully no other code paths will be affected -- including the pstream's ref/unref ones. Thanks, -- Darwish http://darwish.chasingpointers.com
