Add missing write barriers in X509 #932
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Both the X509 store and X509 store context were missing write barriers. To the callback object being stored in the ex data. These values were also being stored as an IV, however in Ruby HEAD we're now storing the IVs for T_DATA (generic IVs) on a separate object. So we need an additional write barrier. I believe this was always necessary, because we could have done incremental marking ahead of compaction, and without the write barrier the mark function could have been run before @verify_callback was assigned. This was detected by wbcheck
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Both the X509 store and X509 store context were missing write barriers. To the callback object being stored in the ex data.
These values were also being stored as an IV, however in Ruby HEAD we're now storing the IVs for T_DATA (generic IVs) on a separate object. So we need an additional write barrier if we're marking it from this object.
I believe this was always necessary, because we could have done incremental marking ahead of compaction, and without the write barrier the mark function could have been run before @verify_callback was assigned.
This was detected by wbcheck