-
NARUSE, Yui authored
Remove ibf_dumper's WB_PROTECTED status It doesn't have the right write barriers in place. For example, there is rb_mark_set(dump->global_buffer.obj_table); in the mark function, but there is no corresponding write barrier when adding to the table in the `ibf_dump_object() -> ibf_table_find_or_insert() -> st_insert()` code path. To insert write barrier correctly, we need to store the T_STRUCT VALUE inside `struct ibf_dump`. Instead of doing that, let's just demote it to WB unproected for correctness. These dumper object are ephemeral so there is not a huge benefit for having them WB protected. Users of the bootsnap gem ran into crashes due to this issue: https://github.com/Shopify/bootsnap/issues/436 Fixes [Bug #19419] --- compile.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
NARUSE, Yui authoredRemove ibf_dumper's WB_PROTECTED status It doesn't have the right write barriers in place. For example, there is rb_mark_set(dump->global_buffer.obj_table); in the mark function, but there is no corresponding write barrier when adding to the table in the `ibf_dump_object() -> ibf_table_find_or_insert() -> st_insert()` code path. To insert write barrier correctly, we need to store the T_STRUCT VALUE inside `struct ibf_dump`. Instead of doing that, let's just demote it to WB unproected for correctness. These dumper object are ephemeral so there is not a huge benefit for having them WB protected. Users of the bootsnap gem ran into crashes due to this issue: https://github.com/Shopify/bootsnap/issues/436 Fixes [Bug #19419] --- compile.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Loading