Re: [HACKERS] v6.1 buffers and performance

At 12:21 AM 6/8/97, Igor wrote:
>After it was done there were several array bounds read errors, one array
>bounds write error (bad!!) and almost 300K of leaked memory...I am not
>sure whether this memory stays allocated when the spawned backend
>terminates, so I don't know whether it really affects anything..Array
>errors are important though...Array bounds reads would read/return
>garbage data, and array bounds writes could overwrite data...

I agree that array bounds problems are *serious*, the write especially so.

As to the fate of leaked memory:  if the leak occurs in a child after the
fork() then it doesn't matter at all after the child terminates.  But can
we guarantee that the amount of memory leaked is "small" even if the life
of the child is "large"?

The priorities seem obvious to me:  1) fix the array bounds problems.  (If
the fix is found after the 6.1 release then *immediately* release patches
and/or version 6.1.1.)  2) Fix memory leaks in the parent PostMaster.
(Make a 6.2 release ASAP.)  3) Fix memory leaks in the child processes,
unless they can be determined to be unimportant for any conceivable
transaction.

I wouldn't normally go on at this length, except that I detect some
ambivalence in the developer's posts on the subject.  I hope that
ambivalence is just an uncertainty in how to deal with the memory problems
given the immaturity of the freeware tools, and not a desire to deny their
seriousness.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu

------------------------------