[torquedev] pbm_mom segfault in TMomCheckJobChild

Glen Beane glen.beane at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 19:39:32 MST 2008


On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Joshua Bernstein
<jbernstein at penguincomputing.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Glen Beane wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Glen Beane <glen.beane at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Joshua Bernstein
>>> <jbernstein at penguincomputing.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Garrick Staples wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> After investigating both patches yesterday, I have to conclude that
>>>>> neither is
>>>>> of merit.  The close_conn() should never do the right thing, and the
>>>>> usage
>>>>> of
>>>>> '&&' in this context is perfectly valid.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. But why is close(i) used there, when apparently in the
>>>> 2.4.0,
>>>> its been corrected to close_conn()? Further close_conn() is used
>>>> elsewhere
>>>> in many other similar functions, thus it seems like a valid fix.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would *not* assume 2.4.0 is correct.
>
> Thats interesting to me. I would expect a later version of the code to be
> more correct then an older version.

yes,  one would expect that.  :)  But  I'm not so sure I trust 2.4.0
as much as 2.3.x at this point.   2.4.0 has had some major changes and
is still undergoing changes, some of which may not be heavily tested

In this specific case,  the change was made on September 4th, and the
svn comment says "improved code by eliminating code duplication" -
this was the only change to this file for this particular commit. So
the change to close_conn() in the 2.4 branch does not appear to be in
an attempt to fix a bug or make the code more correct, it is an
attempt to remove some duplicate code, but in fact it could introduce
a bug considering that it looks like close_conn() won't do anything in
this case.


More information about the torquedev mailing list