Skip to content

branch-4.0: [fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic operations #57436 #57593

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
Closed
github-actions wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

branch-4.0: [fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic operations #57436 #57593

github-actions wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Cherry-picked from #57436

@suxiaogang223
[fix](scanner) Make Scanner close() method thread-safe using atomic o…
d663596 
…perations (#57436)

### What problem does this PR solve?
close: #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
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner October 31, 2025 12:10
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Oct 31, 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?

@dataroaring dataroaring reopened this Oct 31, 2025
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Oct 31, 2025

run buildall

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Dec 1, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor Author

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

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

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor Author

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@yiguolei yiguolei closed this Jan 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@morningman morningman morningman approved these changes

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

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@Thearas @morningman @yiguolei @dataroaring @suxiaogang223