Skip to content

[Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address #57371

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
Merged
HappenLee merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2025
Merged

[Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address #57371

HappenLee merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2025

Conversation

@HappenLee
Copy link
Contributor

@HappenLee HappenLee commented Oct 27, 2025

What problem does this PR solve?

ipv6 use uint128 to construct, but the mem access in storage engine in not align address may cause O3
access coredump

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason

  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.

  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Oct 27, 2025

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?

@HappenLee
Copy link
Contributor Author

HappenLee commented Oct 27, 2025

run buildall

@HappenLee
Copy link
Contributor Author

HappenLee commented Oct 27, 2025

run buildall

BiteTheDDDDt
BiteTheDDDDt approved these changes Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 27, 2025

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions github-actions bot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed labels Oct 27, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 27, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@doris-robot
Copy link

doris-robot commented Oct 27, 2025

ClickBench: Total hot run time: 28.16 s 
machine: 'aliyun_ecs.c7a.8xlarge_32C64G'
scripts: https://github.com/apache/doris/tree/master/tools/clickbench-tools
ClickBench test result on commit f1bf335c9f93257e126f99442b6d47346eda1007, data reload: false

query1	0.05	0.05	0.05
query2	0.10	0.05	0.05
query3	0.25	0.08	0.08
query4	1.61	0.12	0.13
query5	0.29	0.26	0.26
query6	1.18	0.65	0.66
query7	0.03	0.03	0.03
query8	0.06	0.05	0.06
query9	0.62	0.52	0.53
query10	0.58	0.58	0.60
query11	0.17	0.12	0.11
query12	0.16	0.12	0.12
query13	0.63	0.61	0.60
query14	1.05	1.01	1.02
query15	0.86	0.85	0.86
query16	0.41	0.40	0.40
query17	1.01	1.06	1.03
query18	0.23	0.20	0.20
query19	1.94	1.86	1.76
query20	0.01	0.02	0.01
query21	15.46	0.19	0.13
query22	5.03	0.06	0.04
query23	15.67	0.28	0.11
query24	2.61	1.32	0.81
query25	0.08	0.07	0.07
query26	0.15	0.15	0.15
query27	0.07	0.06	0.06
query28	5.32	1.15	0.92
query29	12.57	4.02	3.35
query30	0.28	0.14	0.11
query31	2.82	0.59	0.40
query32	3.27	0.54	0.49
query33	3.07	3.16	3.07
query34	15.84	5.15	4.57
query35	4.58	4.53	4.61
query36	0.68	0.53	0.50
query37	0.09	0.07	0.07
query38	0.08	0.04	0.05
query39	0.04	0.03	0.04
query40	0.18	0.15	0.16
query41	0.09	0.03	0.03
query42	0.04	0.03	0.02
query43	0.04	0.03	0.04
Total cold run time: 99.3 s
Total hot run time: 28.16 s

@HappenLee
Copy link
Contributor Author

HappenLee commented Oct 27, 2025

run buildall

dataroaring
dataroaring approved these changes Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dataroaring dataroaring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@HappenLee
Copy link
Contributor Author

HappenLee commented Oct 28, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Oct 28, 2025

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 52.76% (18055/34224)
Line Coverage 37.99% (163702/430958)
Region Coverage 32.36% (124779/385592)
Branch Coverage 33.73% (54554/161743)

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Oct 28, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 71.33% (23916/33528)
Line Coverage 57.73% (248656/430753)
Region Coverage 52.93% (206604/390306)
Branch Coverage 54.55% (88645/162516)

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Oct 28, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 71.35% (23923/33529)
Line Coverage 57.78% (248891/430766)
Region Coverage 53.00% (206901/390357)
Branch Coverage 54.62% (88768/162526)

1 similar comment
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Oct 28, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 71.35% (23923/33529)
Line Coverage 57.78% (248891/430766)
Region Coverage 53.00% (206901/390357)
Branch Coverage 54.62% (88768/162526)

@HappenLee HappenLee merged commit dec7fac into apache:master Oct 28, 2025
29 of 31 checks passed
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2025
@HappenLee
[Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address (#57371)
fb04802 
### What problem does this PR solve?

ipv6 use uint128 to construct, but the mem access in storage engine in
not align address may cause O3 coredump
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Merged
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2025
@HappenLee
[Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address (#57371)
0839f71 
### What problem does this PR solve?

ipv6 use uint128 to construct, but the mem access in storage engine in
not align address may cause O3 coredump
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Merged
yiguolei pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2025
@github-actions @HappenLee
branch-4.0: [Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address #…
83e4127 
…57371 (#57431)

Cherry-picked from #57371

Co-authored-by: HappenLee <happenlee@selectdb.com>
morrySnow pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2025
@github-actions @HappenLee
branch-3.1: [Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address #…
939ff3a 
…57371 (#57430)

Cherry-picked from #57371

Co-authored-by: HappenLee <happenlee@selectdb.com>
dwdwqfwe pushed a commit to dwdwqfwe/doris that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2025
@HappenLee @dwdwqfwe
[Bug](ip) fixed uint128 constructor in not align address (apache#57371)
54ad75e 
### What problem does this PR solve?

ipv6 use uint128 to construct, but the mem access in storage engine in
not align address may cause O3 coredump
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt approved these changes

@zclllyybb zclllyybb zclllyybb approved these changes

@dataroaring dataroaring dataroaring approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. dev/2.1.x dev/3.0.x dev/3.1.3-merged dev/4.0.1-merged reviewed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants

@HappenLee @Thearas @doris-robot @hello-stephen @BiteTheDDDDt @zclllyybb @dataroaring @yiguolei @morrySnow