Re: Patch proposal: New hooks in the connection path

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> Please find attached v2-0004-connection_hooks.patch

/*
* Stop here if it was bad or a cancel packet. ProcessStartupPacket
* already did any appropriate error reporting.
*/
if (status != STATUS_OK)
+ {
+#ifndef EXEC_BACKEND
+ if (FailedConnection_hook)
+ (*FailedConnection_hook) (FCET_BAD_STARTUP_PACKET, port);
+#endif
proc_exit(0);
+ }

Per the comment above the if condition, the `status != OK` may
represent a cancel packet, as well. Clearly, a cancel packet is not
the same as a _bad_ packet. So I think here you need to differentiate
between a cancel packet and a genuinely bad packet; I don't see
anything good coming good out of us, or the hook-developer, lumping
those 2 cases together.

I think we can reduce the number of places the hook is called, if we
call the hook from proc_exit(), and all the other places we simply set
a global variable to signify the reason for the failure. The case of
_exit(1) from the signal-handler cannot use such a mechanism, but I
think all the other cases of interest can simply register one of the
FCET_* value, and the hook call from proc_exit() can pass that value
to the hook.

If we can convinces ourselves that we can use proc_exit(1) in
StartupPacketTimeoutHandler(), instead of calling _exit(1), I think we
cal eliminate replace all call sites for this hook with
set-global-variable variant.

> ...
> * This should be the only function to call exit().
> * -cim 2/6/90
>...
> proc_exit(int code)

The comment on proc_exit() claims that should be the only place
calling exit(), except the add-on/extension hooks. So there must be a
strong reason why the signal-handler uses _exit() to bypass all
callbacks.

Best regards,
Gurjeet
http://Gurje.et