Closed Bug 203317 Opened 18 years ago Closed 18 years ago

getipnodebyxxxx routines not threadsafe on OpenVMS

Categories

(NSPR :: NSPR, defect)

DEC
OpenVMS
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: colin, Assigned: wtc)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

It turns out that the getipnodebyxxxx routines provided by TCP/IP Services for
OpenVMS are not threadsafe (I have reported this internally as PTR 30-5-415 in
library OSSG). But until the problem gets fixed, I have to patch prnetdb.c to
work around the bug (see attachment in next reply).

If I were to change the "#ifdef VMS" to "#ifdef PR_GETIPNODE_NOT_THREADSAFE" or
something like that, and then define PR_GETIPNODE_NOT_THREADSAFE in
nsprpub/config/OpenVMS.mk, is this something that could/should be checked in?
Attached patch Current patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
This is my current workaround.
Yes, please use something like PR_GETIPNODE_NOT_THREADSAFE.
You'd need to define that macro in nsprpub/configure.in.
nsprpub/config/OpenVMS.mk is obsolete.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attached patch Proposed patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
This version of the patch uses PR_GETIPNODE_NOT_THREADSAFE, and defines it in
the OpenVMS section of configure.in.
Attachment #121649 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #122013 - Flags: review?(wtc)
This is essentially the same as Colin's patch.	I only made
some changes to conform to the coding style (of the placement
of curly braces) and to avoid this nested ifdef and if, which
I find difficult to understand:

+#ifndef PR_GETIPNODE_NOT_THREADSAFE
     if (_pr_ipv6_is_present == PR_FALSE)
+#endif
	 UNLOCK_DNS();
Attachment #122013 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #122013 - Flags: review?(wtc)
Attachment #122027 - Flags: review?(colin)
Attachment #122027 - Flags: review?(colin) → review+
Comment on attachment 122027 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch v1.1

Can this get into 1.4b?
Attachment #122027 - Flags: approval1.4b?
Attachment #122027 - Flags: approval1.4b? → approval1.4b+
I believe this fix is checked in now. So the bug can be closed?
Yes, the fix has been checked in.  Marked the bug fixed.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 4.4
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.