Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

src: fix check for accepting Buffers into Node’s allocator #27174

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

src: fix check for accepting Buffers into Node’s allocator #27174

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion src/api/environment.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -138,7 +138,11 @@ void DebuggingArrayBufferAllocator::UnregisterPointerInternal(void* data,
if (data == nullptr) return;
auto it = allocations_.find(data);
CHECK_NE(it, allocations_.end());
CHECK_EQ(it->second, size);
if (size > 0) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would this be a good place to use CHECK_IMPLIES()?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@cjihrig Does it make a difference? If I want to say “this check is only valid under these conditions”, then I am okay with using an if…

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It shouldn't make a difference. I just thought it might be a bit more concise and possibly (I'm not sure) simplify code coverage.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I’d prefer to keep this as it is here. I’ve noticed this because of failing tests, so I think code coverage isn’t an issue either.

// We allow allocations with size 1 for 0-length buffers to avoid having
// to deal with nullptr values.
CHECK_EQ(it->second, size);
}
allocations_.erase(it);
}

Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/node_buffer.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ MaybeLocal<Object> New(Environment* env,
}

if (uses_malloc) {
if (env->isolate_data()->uses_node_allocator()) {
if (!env->isolate_data()->uses_node_allocator()) {
// We don't know for sure that the allocator is malloc()-based, so we need
// to fall back to the FreeCallback variant.
auto free_callback = [](char* data, void* hint) { free(data); };
Expand Down