src: remove unowned usages of GetBackingStore #44080

kvakil · 2022-08-01T03:56:31Z

This removes all usages of GetBackingStore without any entries in the
CODEOWNERS file. For the most part this is a pretty straightforward
review; except SPREAD_BUFFER_ARG and the changes to CopyArrayBuffer.

See the linked issue for an explanation.

Refs: #32226
Refs: #43921

This removes all usages of GetBackingStore without any entries in the `CODEOWNERS` file. For the most part this is a pretty straightforward review; except `SPREAD_BUFFER_ARG` and the changes to `CopyArrayBuffer`. See the linked issue for an explanation. Refs: nodejs#32226 Refs: nodejs#43921

kvakil · 2022-08-01T04:02:29Z

cc @nodejs/buffer

There are also the following related PRs, but I'm opting not to CC the group on all of them, since they already have codeowners:

RaisinTen

LGTM

src/node_buffer.cc

kvakil · 2022-08-01T05:38:05Z

src/node_buffer.cc

-  } else if (args[0]->IsSharedArrayBuffer()) {
-    source = args[2].As<SharedArrayBuffer>()->GetBackingStore();


@nodejs/whatwg-stream: this is a typo: the first args[0] should be args[2]. I don't think it ends up being an issue in practice. The only user of copyArrayBuffer is in lib/internal/webstreams/readablestream.js, and it doesn't seem possible to pass in a SharedArrayBuffer to either of its arguments.

Anyway, the code motion in this diff fixes the issue anyway.

mcollina

lgtm

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-01T20:59:02Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45780/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-02T00:31:46Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45784/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-02T03:39:26Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45786/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-02T06:06:13Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45791/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-02T16:16:16Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45804/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-02T16:32:17Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45805/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-03T03:29:28Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45812/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-03T04:40:09Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45814/

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-03T05:31:05Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45815/

F3n67u · 2022-08-03T06:45:04Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/45812/

@kvakil FYI. Jenkins CI run has two modes: fresh build and Resume Build. Adding request-ci label will trigger a fresh build, and everything will start fresh. Resume Build mode will only retry the failed test which is more likely to hit a retry success. But Resume Build mode could only be triggered by a collaborator in Jenkins CI. see https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/collaborator-guide.md#testing-and-ci for more details.

If Jenkins CI fails often(like in this pr), it would be better to let a collaborator trigger a resume build, instead of restarting a fresh test every time. In long term, we should solve those test flaky or test infra problems. So if you could help to take a look at those problems when ci flaky, it will be great.

nodejs-github-bot · 2022-08-03T06:45:46Z

Landed in 8c35a4e

kvakil · 2022-08-03T07:35:15Z

@kvakil <https://github.com/kvakil> FYI. Jenkins CI run has two modes: fresh build and Resume Build. Adding |request-ci| label will trigger a fresh build, and everything will start fresh. Resume Build mode will only retry the failed test which is more likely to hit a retry success. But Resume Build mode could only be triggered by a collaborator in Jenkins CI. see https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/collaborator-guide.md#testing-and-ci for more details.

Thanks, that's a good tip! I did not know about the Resume Build option.

This removes all usages of GetBackingStore without any entries in the `CODEOWNERS` file. For the most part this is a pretty straightforward review; except `SPREAD_BUFFER_ARG` and the changes to `CopyArrayBuffer`. See the linked issue for an explanation. Refs: #32226 Refs: #43921 PR-URL: #44080 Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>

In an earlier PR, I replaced a lot of instances of `GetBackingStore()->Data()` with `Data()`. Apparently these two are not equivalent in the case of zero-length buffers: the former returns a "valid" address, while the latter returns `NULL`. At least one library in the ecosystem (see the referenced issue) abuses zero-length buffers to wrap arbitrary pointers, which is broken by this difference. It is unfortunate that every library needs to take a performance hit because of this edge-case, and somebody should figure out if this is actually a reasonable contract to uphold long-term. I have not traced down exactly why this divergence occurs, but I have verified that reverting this line fixes the referenced issue. Refs: nodejs#44080 Fixes: nodejs#44554

This removes all usages of GetBackingStore without any entries in the `CODEOWNERS` file. For the most part this is a pretty straightforward review; except `SPREAD_BUFFER_ARG` and the changes to `CopyArrayBuffer`. See the linked issue for an explanation. Refs: nodejs#32226 Refs: nodejs#43921 PR-URL: nodejs#44080 Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>

nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. labels Aug 1, 2022

kvakil added the buffer Issues and PRs related to the buffer subsystem. label Aug 1, 2022

RaisinTen approved these changes Aug 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/node_buffer.cc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kvakil commented Aug 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

fixup! src: remove unowned usages of GetBackingStore

63af093

mcollina approved these changes Aug 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

addaleax approved these changes Aug 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

kvakil added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Aug 1, 2022

github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Aug 1, 2022

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2022

CI Reliability 2022-08-02 nodejs/reliability#335

Open

11 tasks