Fix missing WB going to too_complex on class/geniv #13696
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
8d129d8 to
f4cc803
Compare
❌ Tests Failed✖️no tests failed ✔️62040 tests passed(1 flake) |
It's supposed to be fine because the table is created with the right size, so it's not supposed to allocate. |
byroot
reviewed
Jun 25, 2025
variable.c
Outdated
|
|
||
| RUBY_ASSERT(!st_lookup(table, (st_data_t)key, NULL)); | ||
| st_add_direct(table, (st_data_t)key, (st_data_t)val); | ||
| RB_OBJ_WRITTEN(fields, Qundef, key); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The key is an ID so it doesn't need a write barrier AFAIK.
We were creating a new fields object, and then inserting into it without
a write barrier.
OpenSSL::TestSSL#test_tlsext_hostname
WBCHECK ERROR: Missed write barrier detected!
Parent object: 0x7ce8b3a390c0 (wb_protected: true)
rb_obj_info_dump: 0x00007ce8b3a390c0 T_IMEMO/<fields>
Reference counts - snapshot: 1, writebarrier: 1, current: 4, missed: 2
Missing reference to: 0x7c08b4110750
rb_obj_info_dump: 0x00007c08b4110750 OpenSSL/X509/OpenSSL::X509::Certificate OpenSSL/X509
Missing reference to: 0x7c08b4128dd0
rb_obj_info_dump: 0x00007c08b4128dd0 OpenSSL/EVP_PKEY/OpenSSL::PKey::RSA OpenSSL/EVP_PKEY
af5453c to
98eba25
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We were creating a new fields object, and then inserting into it without a write barrier.
I was looking into this because of this CI failure: https://rubyci.s3.amazonaws.com/debian11/ruby-master/log/20250624T213003Z.fail.html.gz
When running OpenSSL::TestSSL, wbcheck reports:
Another thing I noticed is that in some other cases (for T_OBJECT?), we're allocating an st_table first and only after assigning it to the object. That might be fine, but I wonder if that could fail under autocompact. I kept this building the table first and then inserting with a writebarrier after for that reason.
cc @byroot