Re: Pools not adequeately protected by mutexes?

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On 29 Apr 1999, Ben Hyde wrote:

> The pconf is also static in there which is a help in
> tracing out it's uses.  It's not a huge help since it
> travels around a lot.  What would have to happen is
> for it to be stored during configuation time and then
> allocated in during request processing time.  Oviously
> that would be likely to leak.  A clever module author
> might think it was safe to allocate in that pool during
> request processing, but he'd be wrong.

A useful exercise for someone would be to write protect pconf's data after
config time.  Anything modifying that after config time should be
considered possibly broken.

There are "safe" modifications ... but for performance reasons we would
actually want to split those out into a different pool.

If we could nail down the conf info into write protected pages, we'd know
for sure we wouldn't be duplicating those pages at run time... and we
wouldn't have any multicpu cache contention on the lines. 

Dean