On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 01:12:35AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The problem is that a DSM handle (ie a random number) can be reused
> for a new segment immediately after the shared memory object has been
> destroyed but before the DSM slot has been released. Now two DSM
> slots have the same handle, and dsm_attach() can be confused by the
> old segment and give up.
>
> Here's a draft patch to fix that. It also clears the handle in a case
> where it wasn't previously cleared, but that wasn't strictly
> necessary. It just made debugging less confusing.
Thanks.
Do you think that plausibly explains and resolves symptoms of bug#15585, too?
Justin
