Re: [PATCH 1/8] reconfiguration leaks: implicit ACLs

On 14/06/2014 7:57 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 01:58 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 25/04/2014 12:46 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> Do not leak implicit ACLs during reconfigure.
>>>
>>> Many ACLs implicitly created by Squid when grouping multiple ACLs were
>>> not destroyed because those implicit ACLs where not covered by the
>>> global ACL registry used for ACL destruction.
>>>
>>> See also: r13210 which did not go far enough because it incorrectly
>>> assumed that all InnerNode() children are aclRegister()ed and, hence,
>>> will be centrally freed.
>
>
>> -0.
>
> Is this a "negative" vote from "Squid3 voting" rules point of view?
> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MergeProcedure#Squid3_Voting

It is "I don't like it but not objecting to a commit if you do it".

>
>
>> I believe we should move to reference counting ACLs instead of
>> continuing to work around these edge cases.
>
> I agree that reference counting is an overall better design for ACLs, of
> course. However, since refcounting ACLs would be a large change that
> nobody has volunteered to implement in the foreseeable future (AFAIK), I
> suggest that this [significant] leak fix should go in now.
>
> Any other votes/opinions?
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Alex.
>
Received on Sat Jun 14 2014 - 01:21:39 MDT