Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

libnetwork: use atomic write for the backend file #877

Merged

Conversation

Luap99
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 commented Jan 7, 2022

It is possible that two processes write at the same time and this could
lead to an invalid value in the file.

I think this fixes a race condition which was observed in the buildah
integration tests.

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 7, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Luap99

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Jan 7, 2022
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jan 7, 2022

LGTM

It is possible that two processes write at the same time and this could
lead to an invalid value in the file.

I think this fixes a race condition which was observed in the buildah
integration tests.

Signed-off-by: Paul Holzinger <[email protected]>
@Luap99 Luap99 force-pushed the network-backend-atomic branch from 255875c to e3dee00 Compare January 7, 2022 16:43
@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Jan 7, 2022

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 7, 2022
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 9781478 into containers:main Jan 7, 2022
@Luap99 Luap99 deleted the network-backend-atomic branch January 7, 2022 17:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants