Fix possible dangling pointer #698
Merged
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
added 6 commits
May 9, 2024 18:57
|
To examine if dangling pointer could happen, just add a logging output(VSOMEIP_DEBUG, std::cerr, etc.) to ~connection() and accept_cbk(). You might find that ~connection() is called earlier than accept_cbk(), which indicates the connection object has been destructed already before accept_cbk() being called. |
|
@StalinCCCP could you resolve this conflict? working on merging this PR |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR is related to #695 (comment)
Considering std::bind would make T&& a T(rvalue to lvalue), and that copying shared_pointer will automatically add a reference count and hold its ownership, I changed the first parameter of accept_cbk() from const connection::ptr& to connection::ptr. This change guarantees no dangling pointer would be possible.