Skip to content

Conversation

@scode
Copy link

@scode scode commented Jul 24, 2019

As discussed here @charlievieth noted a race condition. Close() attempts to copy state it wants while under lock, only to then release the lock and close underlying sockets. However, concurrent code paths may reach removeSocket() and cause modification of the slices which were't copied (only aliased) while the lock was held.

By making an actual copy under the lock, we avoid this problem without adding additional complexity.

@charlievieth
Copy link

👍

@charlievieth
Copy link

@scode missed this in the review, but there is still a race around close. Details in #41.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants