Skip to content

branch-4.0: [fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic operations (#57436) #59605

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
suxiaogang223 wants to merge 1 commit into
base: branch-4.0
Choose a base branch
from
Open

branch-4.0: [fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic operations (#57436) #59605

suxiaogang223 wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@suxiaogang223
Copy link
Contributor

@suxiaogang223 suxiaogang223 commented Jan 6, 2026

bp: #57436

@suxiaogang223
[fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic o…
1759d67 
…perations (apache#57436)

### What problem does this PR solve?
close: apache#56328

Problem Summary:
The current close() method in Scanner class and its derived classes has
thread safety issues in multi-threaded environments. Multiple threads
may call close() simultaneously, leading to:
1. Race conditions: Multiple threads may check _is_closed status and
execute close operations simultaneously
2. Double close: May cause resources to be released or cleaned up
multiple times
3. Potential memory leaks or crash risks
@suxiaogang223
Copy link
Contributor Author

suxiaogang223 commented Jan 6, 2026

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Jan 6, 2026

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Jan 6, 2026

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 46.15% (6/13) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 53.28% (18675/35050)
Line Coverage 39.10% (173023/442542)
Region Coverage 33.77% (133646/395751)
Branch Coverage 34.76% (57829/166343)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@yiguolei yiguolei Awaiting requested review from yiguolei yiguolei is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@suxiaogang223 @hello-stephen