Fixed race condition in MessageFilter using a reader-writer locked reference #383
Conversation
This file contains 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
The callback is sometimes called after the corresponding MessageFilter instance was destroyed. This commit fixes this race condition by using a reference that is wrapped using a reader-writer lock.
Merged
|
Thank you! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This pull request fixes issue #379 using a struct that wraps the reference to the class using a reader-writer lock.
The callbacks request shared access to the mutex and can access the filter simultaneously whereas if the filter gets destroyed, the destructor requests unique access and therefore no callback can be executed while the destructor voids the reference.
Once the callback gets access to the reference, it checks if the reference was voided and simply returns Success if it was.
This pull request is an alternative to #384.
Cons:
Pros: