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
