Skip to content

[23042] Bugfix: Properly delete secure endpoints if registration fails #5814

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 21, 2025
Merged

[23042] Bugfix: Properly delete secure endpoints if registration fails #5814

merged 3 commits into from
May 21, 2025

Conversation

Mario-DL
Copy link
Member

@Mario-DL Mario-DL commented May 14, 2025 •
edited by cferreiragonz
Loading

Description

This PR fixes a bug in which, when secure writers or readers failed to register, cleanup is not properly performed.

No need for backport since local_actions_on_.._removed() was introduced in 3.2.x.

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.
  • The code follows the style guidelines of this project.
  • Tests that thoroughly check the new feature have been added/Regression tests checking the bug and its fix have been added; the added tests pass locally
  • Any new/modified methods have been properly documented using Doxygen.
  • Any new configuration API has an equivalent XML API (with the corresponding XSD extension)
  • NO Changes are backport compatible: they do NOT break ABI nor change library core behavior.
  • Changes are API compatible.
  • N/A New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).
  • N/A New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.
  • NO Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

  • The PR has a milestone assigned.
  • The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
  • Check contributor checklist is correct.
  • N/A If this is a critical bug fix, backports to the critical-only supported branches have been requested.
  • Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
  • Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

Mario-DL added 2 commits May 14, 2025 12:49
@Mario-DL
Add BB test
31e5232 
Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <[email protected]>
@Mario-DL
Add Fix
caeb9dd 
Signed-off-by: Mario Dominguez <[email protected]>
@Mario-DL Mario-DL added this to the v3.2.3 milestone May 14, 2025
@Mario-DL Mario-DL requested review from richiprosima and removed request for richiprosima May 14, 2025 11:02
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ci-pending PR which CI is running label May 14, 2025
cferreiragonz
cferreiragonz requested changes May 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@cferreiragonz cferreiragonz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If calling local_actions_on_writer_removed() from StatefulWriter destructor does not have any side-effects I would try to follow that approach.

src/cpp/rtps/participant/RTPSParticipantImpl.cpp
@@ -975,6 +975,7 @@ bool RTPSParticipantImpl::create_writer(
if (!m_security_manager.register_local_writer(SWriter->getGuid(),
param.endpoint.properties, SWriter->getAttributes().security_attributes()))
{
SWriter->local_actions_on_writer_removed();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we add a call to local_actions_on_writer_removed() on the StatefulWriter Destructor to ensure that events are always destroyed, instead of manually calling it here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The local_actions_on_writer_removed() comes from the former deinit() that was explicitly moved out from the StatefulPersistentWriter destructor, in this commit

However I dont see any reason why we should not call it from the StatafulWriter

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Calling virtual functions inside destructors is dangerous. We could have a proxy method that receives a pointer to a writer and performs the call to local_actions_on_writer_removed() and then deletes the writer

@Mario-DL
Copy link
Member Author

This latter commit only changes the test description, maybe with the former ci is enough

@cferreiragonz
Copy link
Contributor

CI passed in previous commit caeb9dd

@cferreiragonz cferreiragonz added ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved. and removed ci-pending PR which CI is running labels May 21, 2025
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany merged commit c3b71e3 into master May 21, 2025
3 checks passed
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany deleted the fix/23042 branch May 21, 2025 09:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left review comments

@cferreiragonz cferreiragonz cferreiragonz approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ready-to-merge Ready to be merged. CI and changes have been reviewed and approved.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v3.2.3
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Mario-DL @cferreiragonz @MiguelCompany