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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: memory leak during STEK rotation #5146
fix: memory leak during STEK rotation #5146
Changes from all commits
43d0aed
35f3265
28fdf02
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's several places in the code that already use s2n_set_get to iterate over the full set. Should this PR just remove ticket_key_hashes, and not yet swap the type of ticket_keys?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think as long as it's not too hard to review, I like the shift to array because it more accurately describes how we are using the data structure now.
But the diff would definitely be smaller if we broke it out into two PRs. 🤷 . Lmk what you think!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I lean towards breaking it up into two PRs, since you're already going to have a follow-up PR where you remove the set implementation. That seems like a more logical division to me: this PR only fixes the memory leak, that PR removes set (and part of removing set is removing uses of set).
But it's not a blocker for me.