Skip to content

Conversation

@enjoy-binbin
Copy link
Contributor

The code does not delete the corresponding node when traversing clients,
resulting in a loop, causing the dictDelete() == DICT_OK assertion to fail.

In addition, did a cleanup, in the dictCreate scenario, we can avoid a
dictFind call since the dict is empty.

Issue was introduced in #12804.

…ing the client

The code does not delete the corresponding node when traversing clients,
resulting in a loop, causing the dictDelete() == DICT_OK assertion to fail.

In addition, did a cleanup, in the dictCreate scenario, we can avoid a
dictFind call since the dict is empty.

Issue was introduced in redis#12804.
@enjoy-binbin
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oranagra oranagra merged commit 99c468c into redis:unstable Dec 28, 2023
@enjoy-binbin enjoy-binbin deleted the fix_crash branch December 28, 2023 06:35
@CharlesChen888
Copy link
Contributor

Do we need a test to cover this case?

@enjoy-binbin
Copy link
Contributor Author

25-pubsubshard-slot-migration.tcl can cover it

roggervalf pushed a commit to roggervalf/redis that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2024
…ing the client (redis#12896)

The code does not delete the corresponding node when traversing clients,
resulting in a loop, causing the dictDelete() == DICT_OK assertion to
fail.

In addition, did a cleanup, in the dictCreate scenario, we can avoid a
dictFind call since the dict is empty.

Issue was introduced in redis#12804.
funny-dog pushed a commit to funny-dog/redis that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2025
…ing the client (redis#12896)

The code does not delete the corresponding node when traversing clients,
resulting in a loop, causing the dictDelete() == DICT_OK assertion to
fail.

In addition, did a cleanup, in the dictCreate scenario, we can avoid a
dictFind call since the dict is empty.

Issue was introduced in redis#12804.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants