Datasets locking/v6 #12361
Closed
Datasets locking/v6 #12361
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
In a recent warning reported by scan-build, datasets were found to be
using a blocking call in a critical section.
datasets.c:187:12: warning: Call to blocking function 'fgets' inside of critical section [unix.BlockInCriticalSection]
187 | while (fgets(line, (int)sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
datasets.c:292:12: warning: Call to blocking function 'fgets' inside of critical section [unix.BlockInCriticalSection]
292 | while (fgets(line, (int)sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
datasets.c:368:12: warning: Call to blocking function 'fgets' inside of critical section [unix.BlockInCriticalSection]
368 | while (fgets(line, (int)sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
datasets.c:442:12: warning: Call to blocking function 'fgets' inside of critical section [unix.BlockInCriticalSection]
442 | while (fgets(line, (int)sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
datasets.c:512:12: warning: Call to blocking function 'fgets' inside of critical section [unix.BlockInCriticalSection]
512 | while (fgets(line, (int)sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 warnings generated.
These calls are blocking in the multi tenant mode where several tenants
may be trying to load the same dataset in parallel.
In a single tenant mode, this operation is performed as a part of a
single thread before the engine startup.
In order to evade the warning and simplify the code, the initial file
reading is moved to Rust with this commit with a much simpler handling
of dataset and datarep.
Bug 7398
inashivb
force-pushed
the
datasets-locking/v6
branch
from
5865684 to
2f18f59
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #12361 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.54% 82.50% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 912 913 +1
Lines 258028 258073 +45
==========================================
- Hits 212988 212932 -56
- Misses 45040 45141 +101
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
Coverage is quite low. Can you investigate why? |
All error conditions, it seems that are not already covered by our test suite. I can craft tests for some. |
|
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 24129 |
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.
Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7398
Previous PR: #12334
Changes since v5:
FatalErrorOnInitSV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2223