Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2003
Stas Bekman wrote: > Alan, your worries have been accounted for. This is precisely the reason > I wanted to have a test that mounts an attack on stashes. So we now test > that mod_perl 2.0 works just fine if and when such attack happens. > Notice that I talk only about stashes, since that's where the black > magic overlaps with mod_perl functionality. All other hashes in the > "user" space should have no effect on mod_perl. > > It just proves again how important is to write tests before you start > solving a problem. We saw mod_perl 2.0 goes broken immediately after > plan C was implemented. Though once Nick changed the threshold for > rehashing from 4 to 14 the breakage has disappeared, because the normal > tests didn't happen to trigger it (that's where your worry kicks in). > Now that we have a specific test that mounts the attack and it verifies > that the attack was successful (to prevent cases of future changes in > the rehashing algorithm) we are covered 100%. If we didn't have this > test you indeed would have seen random failures reported by users some > time later. Thanks Stas, now I feel all warm and cozy ;-) > I doubt that plan C affects any other projects, that don't mess with > hashing internals like mod_perl does, any different that they get > affected by changes in 5.8.1. So if Tk and DBI did fine with 5.8.1 they > will do just as fine with 5.8.2 (assuming of course that they don't > mimic mod_perl ;) Nice job BTW, you and Nick deserve a lot of thanks for all the effort you have put in to nail this. -- Alan Burlison --Thread Previous | Thread Next