One of the issues programmers frequently face is knowing whether some piece of data you have is actually valid. Modern languages provide a variety of methods for creating an "invariant condition" about the validity of your data - reference counting, for example, allows you to ensure that data is not free'd before all references to it have been removed. This invariant is not always what you first think. The invariant condition for reference counting, for example, is that the data is either referenced by something or by nothing at all. Generally the programmer will treat the transition from "referenced by something" to "referenced by nothing" as the important transition and do something like removing the object from whatever lists its on, notifying other objects that its going away, cleaning up allocated memory, etc.
Take traditional "callback" type programming. The programmer decides that some function is to be called after an event has occured (for example, "the ACL lookup has completed", or "the network write has completed") and this function needs some sort of "state" to know what its operating on. You could view this state as a sort of object. The trouble in C is that the language itself doesn't give you any tools to know that the supplied pointer is valid or not. Now, think about this - firstly, whats "valid" mean. The pointer is pointing to some region of memory that hasn't been freed? What about the state of the object? What if the object state changed between the callback being scheduled and the callback being executed? Is this "valid"?
Squid implements "callback data". Initially, this "callback data" (called
cbdata in the code) was a registry for callback data pointers. Pointers were reference counted when passed in as part of a scheduled callback; they would be decremented before the callback was about to run, and the callback would only be executed if the callback pointer was "valid". The "owner" (for whatever meanings of "own" you'd like to try and define) could "free" the data pointer - in which case the callback data registry would mark that pointer as invalid; subsequent checks for the validity of said pointer would return invalid, and any callbacks that were going to occur could be ignored. Eventually, the reference count would hit 0 and at 0 the memory at the pointer would be freed.
Expressed as code:
ptr = cbdataAlloc(type);
...
doSomething(someFunc, ptr)
which would:
state->cb = someFunc;
state->cbdata = ptr;
cbdataLock(ptr);
.. then, when the chain of events which doSomething() started would finish, this would occur:
if (state->cb && cbdataValid(ptr)) {
state->cb(state->cbdata);
}
cbdataUnlock(ptr);
This way, the callback would only occur IFF there was a callback and the callback data was still valid.
cbdataAlloc() returns a pointer with refcount = 0 and valid = true ; cbdataLock() incremented refcount; cbdataUnlock() decremented refcount and would free the pointer if (valid == false && refcount == 0); cbdataValid() returned (valid == true); cbdataFree() would set valid = false and free the object if (valid == false && refcount == 0)
This worked out to be quite helpful in preventing callbacks from being run if the data was freed. It however introduces a few assumptions which make certain things difficult to debug and implement.
Firstly, you don't have any guarantee that the callback will be called when you schedule for the call. So in the above code, if something calls cbdataFree(ptr) between the callback registration and the completion of the action initiated by doSomething(), the action will complete but the callback won't be made. The programmer needs to make sure that the code can handle not having the callback ever be made. Traditionally, you would instead either cancel the operation explicitly instead of letting it continue to completion and handle the situation where it couldn't be cancelled, or let the operation complete before transitioning to some "dying" state.
Secondly, generally the "object destructor" here is called not by the cbdata reference count hitting 0, but by some explicit destruction call elsewhere in the code. For example, you would have this in the code:
fooComplete(foo *ptr)
{
free(ptr->data);
cbdataFree(ptr);
}
There still may be references to the callback data but no callbacks will occur on it because cbdataFree() marks that ptr as invalid. So cbdata isn't quite behaving traditional reference counted "types" behave.
Here's where this gets ugly: but it can - you can register a function to be called just before the ptr is finally freed. _SOME_ areas of code do this. _SOME_ areas of code do not. You can't assume that the behaviour for a given cbdata pointer type will be one or the other.
Thirdly, if the action initiated by doSomething() requires some part of ptr to be valid then it will need to wrap every access to the data inside ptr with a if (cbdataValid(ptr)) check. This doesn't always happen :) and has been the cause of all sorts of silly bugs because although the memory pointed to by ptr is still valid, the object may have gone through its "destruction" phase and whats left in memory (which again, hasn't been freed) is actually the last traces of object state. This may be valid, this may be invalid. Who knows. I can't guarantee that accesses to cbdata pointer dereferences are always done conditional to said pointer being valid. That would be a fun thing to hack in as a valgrind module!
This all started rearing its ugly head in Squid-3 as a few things were converted from cbdata type pointers to more traditional reference counted types. The programmers assumed the behaviour was equivalent when it wasn't and all kinds of strange bugs arose some of which took over 12 months to find and fix.
What would I like to see? Thats a good question and will probably form the basis of further improvements in Cacheboy..
