Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(63)

Issue 500010: Mac: make it even less likely that the renderer+Breakpad leaks Mach ports. (Closed)

Created:
11 years ago by viettrungluu
Modified:
9 years, 6 months ago
CC:
chromium-reviews_googlegroups.com, brettw+cc_chromium.org, darin (slow to review), jam, krisr
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Mac: make it even less likely that the renderer+Breakpad leaks Mach ports. SuicideOnChannelErrorFilter::OnChannelError() does get called under certain (unknown) circumstances, with some regularity. This causes a leak of a Mach port when used with Breakpad. BUG=28547 TEST=See bug. Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=34534

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : Fix to gypi so that tests build (hopefully). #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+18 lines, -1 line) Patch
M chrome/chrome_tests.gypi View 2 chunks +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M chrome/renderer/render_thread.cc View 2 chunks +17 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 4 (0 generated)
viettrungluu
Sending this out, but let me go make a branded build and test it....
11 years ago (2009-12-15 01:34:32 UTC) #1
John Grabowski
LGTM Be sure you add extra into to krisr's confirmation script to help be sure ...
11 years ago (2009-12-15 01:48:13 UTC) #2
Mark Mentovai
LGTM on the change itself. Additional thoughts: 1. 249 branch? I think mal already did ...
11 years ago (2009-12-15 04:14:58 UTC) #3
viettrungluu
11 years ago (2009-12-15 08:02:31 UTC) #4
On 2009/12/15 04:14:58, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> LGTM on the change itself.  Additional thoughts:
> 
> 1. 249 branch?  I think mal already did a build to use for the beta
> update, you might want to talk to him.

Yes, that's the plan. I'll will talk to mal.

> 2. Do we need to do anything for other process types, like the plugin process?

That's a good question. A very cursory skimming of the code suggests that the
plugin process may need it too, but it's hard to tell. I haven't seen a leak
which I can definitely (or even likely) pin on the plugin process, though it's
hard to tell when there are multiple leaks.

I think we should throw have the testers hammer on this, and be satisfied if it
leaks slowly enough.

- Trung

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698