win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2015 The Crashpad Authors. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
// limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "util/win/exception_handler_server.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <windows.h>
|
2016-01-06 12:22:50 -05:00
|
|
|
#include <sys/types.h>
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <string>
|
|
|
|
#include <vector>
|
|
|
|
|
2016-01-06 12:22:50 -05:00
|
|
|
#include "base/macros.h"
|
2015-11-02 17:00:06 -05:00
|
|
|
#include "base/strings/utf_string_conversions.h"
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
#include "client/crashpad_client.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "test/win/win_child_process.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/thread/thread.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/win/address_types.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/win/registration_protocol_win.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "util/win/scoped_handle.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace crashpad {
|
|
|
|
namespace test {
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Runs the ExceptionHandlerServer on a background thread.
|
|
|
|
class RunServerThread : public Thread {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
2015-10-29 18:19:37 -04:00
|
|
|
// Instantiates a thread which will invoke server->Run(delegate).
|
2015-09-03 13:31:19 -07:00
|
|
|
RunServerThread(ExceptionHandlerServer* server,
|
2015-10-29 18:19:37 -04:00
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer::Delegate* delegate)
|
|
|
|
: server_(server), delegate_(delegate) {}
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
~RunServerThread() override {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
// Thread:
|
2015-10-29 18:19:37 -04:00
|
|
|
void ThreadMain() override { server_->Run(delegate_); }
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer* server_;
|
2015-09-03 13:31:19 -07:00
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer::Delegate* delegate_;
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(RunServerThread);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class TestDelegate : public ExceptionHandlerServer::Delegate {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
explicit TestDelegate(HANDLE server_ready) : server_ready_(server_ready) {}
|
|
|
|
~TestDelegate() override {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void ExceptionHandlerServerStarted() override {
|
|
|
|
SetEvent(server_ready_);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
unsigned int ExceptionHandlerServerException(
|
|
|
|
HANDLE process,
|
2015-10-15 13:18:08 -07:00
|
|
|
WinVMAddress exception_information_address,
|
|
|
|
WinVMAddress debug_critical_section_address) override {
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void WaitForStart() { WaitForSingleObject(server_ready_, INFINITE); }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
HANDLE server_ready_; // weak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(TestDelegate);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class ExceptionHandlerServerTest : public testing::Test {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServerTest()
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
: server_(true),
|
2016-10-21 13:08:18 -07:00
|
|
|
pipe_name_(L"\\\\.\\pipe\\test_name"),
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
server_ready_(CreateEvent(nullptr, false, false, nullptr)),
|
|
|
|
delegate_(server_ready_.get()),
|
2016-10-21 13:08:18 -07:00
|
|
|
server_thread_(&server_, &delegate_) {
|
|
|
|
server_.SetPipeName(pipe_name_);
|
|
|
|
}
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TestDelegate& delegate() { return delegate_; }
|
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer& server() { return server_; }
|
|
|
|
Thread& server_thread() { return server_thread_; }
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
const std::wstring& pipe_name() const { return pipe_name_; }
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer server_;
|
|
|
|
std::wstring pipe_name_;
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
ScopedKernelHANDLE server_ready_;
|
|
|
|
TestDelegate delegate_;
|
|
|
|
RunServerThread server_thread_;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ExceptionHandlerServerTest);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// During destruction, ensures that the server is stopped and the background
|
|
|
|
// thread joined.
|
|
|
|
class ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread(ExceptionHandlerServer* server, Thread* thread)
|
|
|
|
: server_(server), thread_(thread) {}
|
|
|
|
~ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread() {
|
|
|
|
server_->Stop();
|
|
|
|
thread_->Join();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
ExceptionHandlerServer* server_;
|
|
|
|
Thread* thread_;
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST_F(ExceptionHandlerServerTest, Instantiate) {
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST_F(ExceptionHandlerServerTest, StartAndStop) {
|
|
|
|
server_thread().Start();
|
|
|
|
ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread scoped_stop_server_and_join_thread(
|
|
|
|
&server(), &server_thread());
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(delegate().WaitForStart());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST_F(ExceptionHandlerServerTest, StopWhileConnected) {
|
|
|
|
server_thread().Start();
|
|
|
|
ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread scoped_stop_server_and_join_thread(
|
|
|
|
&server(), &server_thread());
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(delegate().WaitForStart());
|
|
|
|
CrashpadClient client;
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
client.SetHandlerIPCPipe(pipe_name());
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
// Leaving this scope causes the server to be stopped, while the connection
|
|
|
|
// is still open.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
std::wstring ReadWString(FileHandle handle) {
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
size_t length = 0;
|
Make file_io reads more rational and predictable
ReadFile() attempted to continue reading after a short read. In most
cases, this is fine. However, ReadFile() would keep trying to fill a
partially-filled buffer until experiencing a 0-length read(), signaling
end-of-file. For certain weird file descriptors like terminal input, EOF
is an ephemeral condition, and attempting to read beyond EOF doesn’t
actually return 0 (EOF) provided that they remain open, it will block
waiting for more input. Consequently, ReadFile() and anything based on
ReadFile() had an undocumented and quirky interface, which was that any
short read that it returned (not an underlying short read) actually
indicated EOF.
This facet of ReadFile() was unexpected, so it’s being removed. The new
behavior is that ReadFile() will return an underlying short read. The
behavior of FileReaderInterface::Read() is updated in accordance with
this change.
Upon experiencing a short read, the caller can determine the best
action. Most callers were already prepared for this behavior. Outside of
util/file, only crashpad_database_util properly implemented EOF
detection according to previous semantics, and adapting it to new
semantics is trivial.
Callers who require an exact-length read can use the new
ReadFileExactly(), or the newly renamed LoggingReadFileExactly() or
CheckedReadFileExactly(). These functions will retry following a short
read. The renamed functions were previously called LoggingReadFile() and
CheckedReadFile(), but those names implied that they were simply
wrapping ReadFile(), which is not the case. They wrapped ReadFile() and
further, insisted on a full read. Since ReadFile()’s semantics are now
changing but these functions’ are not, they’re now even more distinct
from ReadFile(), and must be renamed to avoid confusion.
Test: *
Change-Id: I06b77e0d6ad8719bd2eb67dab93a8740542dd908
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/456676
Reviewed-by: Robert Sesek <rsesek@chromium.org>
2017-03-16 13:36:38 -04:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(LoggingReadFileExactly(handle, &length, sizeof(length)));
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
std::wstring str(length, L'\0');
|
|
|
|
if (length > 0) {
|
Make file_io reads more rational and predictable
ReadFile() attempted to continue reading after a short read. In most
cases, this is fine. However, ReadFile() would keep trying to fill a
partially-filled buffer until experiencing a 0-length read(), signaling
end-of-file. For certain weird file descriptors like terminal input, EOF
is an ephemeral condition, and attempting to read beyond EOF doesn’t
actually return 0 (EOF) provided that they remain open, it will block
waiting for more input. Consequently, ReadFile() and anything based on
ReadFile() had an undocumented and quirky interface, which was that any
short read that it returned (not an underlying short read) actually
indicated EOF.
This facet of ReadFile() was unexpected, so it’s being removed. The new
behavior is that ReadFile() will return an underlying short read. The
behavior of FileReaderInterface::Read() is updated in accordance with
this change.
Upon experiencing a short read, the caller can determine the best
action. Most callers were already prepared for this behavior. Outside of
util/file, only crashpad_database_util properly implemented EOF
detection according to previous semantics, and adapting it to new
semantics is trivial.
Callers who require an exact-length read can use the new
ReadFileExactly(), or the newly renamed LoggingReadFileExactly() or
CheckedReadFileExactly(). These functions will retry following a short
read. The renamed functions were previously called LoggingReadFile() and
CheckedReadFile(), but those names implied that they were simply
wrapping ReadFile(), which is not the case. They wrapped ReadFile() and
further, insisted on a full read. Since ReadFile()’s semantics are now
changing but these functions’ are not, they’re now even more distinct
from ReadFile(), and must be renamed to avoid confusion.
Test: *
Change-Id: I06b77e0d6ad8719bd2eb67dab93a8740542dd908
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/456676
Reviewed-by: Robert Sesek <rsesek@chromium.org>
2017-03-16 13:36:38 -04:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(
|
|
|
|
LoggingReadFileExactly(handle, &str[0], length * sizeof(str[0])));
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return str;
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
void WriteWString(FileHandle handle, const std::wstring& str) {
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
size_t length = str.size();
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(LoggingWriteFile(handle, &length, sizeof(length)));
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
if (length > 0) {
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_TRUE(LoggingWriteFile(handle, &str[0], length * sizeof(str[0])));
|
|
|
|
}
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class TestClient final : public WinChildProcess {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
TestClient() : WinChildProcess() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~TestClient() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
int Run() override {
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
std::wstring pipe_name = ReadWString(ReadPipeHandle());
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
CrashpadClient client;
|
2015-11-02 17:00:06 -05:00
|
|
|
if (!client.SetHandlerIPCPipe(pipe_name)) {
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
ADD_FAILURE();
|
|
|
|
return EXIT_FAILURE;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
WriteWString(WritePipeHandle(), L"OK");
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(TestClient);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
Un-disable WinMultiprocess-based tests in Chromium
As of
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/00a0654929787f70b0cd81f30aa14e81c5e11b2f,
crashpad_util_test is able to run in Chromium. It uses Chromium’s own
base::TestLauncher rather than gtest’s RUN_ALL_TESTS() for proper
integration with Swarming.
Launching WinMultiprocess test children out of the same test executable
via WinChildProcess is not compatible with Chromium’s parallel, shardy,
Swarmy test launcher. When running these children, the standard gtest
RUN_ALL_TESTS() launcher will now be used, even in Chromium.
Two tests disabled in Chromium are now enabled:
ExceptionHandlerServerTest.MultipleConnections and
ScopedProcessSuspend.ScopedProcessSuspend.
As part of this work, I discovered that disabled tests chosen to run via
--gtest_also_run_disabled_tests did not actually work for
WinMultiprocess-based tests, because gtest’s test launcher would refuse
to run the child side of the test, believing it was disabled. This is
fixed by always supplying --gtest_also_run_disabled_tests to
WinChildProcess children, on the basis that if the parent is managing to
run and it’s disabled, disabled tests must actually be enabled.
Bug: crashpad:205
Change-Id: Ied22f16b9329ee13b6b07fd29de704f6fe2a058e
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/742462
Reviewed-by: Scott Graham <scottmg@chromium.org>
2017-10-27 17:41:32 -04:00
|
|
|
TEST_F(ExceptionHandlerServerTest, MultipleConnections) {
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
WinChildProcess::EntryPoint<TestClient>();
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-25 12:13:07 -07:00
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<WinChildProcess::Handles> handles_1 =
|
|
|
|
WinChildProcess::Launch();
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<WinChildProcess::Handles> handles_2 =
|
|
|
|
WinChildProcess::Launch();
|
|
|
|
std::unique_ptr<WinChildProcess::Handles> handles_3 =
|
|
|
|
WinChildProcess::Launch();
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Must ensure the delegate outlasts the server.
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
server_thread().Start();
|
|
|
|
ScopedStopServerAndJoinThread scoped_stop_server_and_join_thread(
|
|
|
|
&server(), &server_thread());
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(delegate().WaitForStart());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Tell all the children where to connect.
|
2015-11-03 19:26:18 -05:00
|
|
|
WriteWString(handles_1->write.get(), pipe_name());
|
|
|
|
WriteWString(handles_2->write.get(), pipe_name());
|
|
|
|
WriteWString(handles_3->write.get(), pipe_name());
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
test: Use (actual, [un]expected) in gtest {ASSERT,EXPECT}_{EQ,NE}
gtest used to require (expected, actual) ordering for arguments to
EXPECT_EQ and ASSERT_EQ, and in failed test assertions would identify
each side as “expected” or “actual.” Tests in Crashpad adhered to this
traditional ordering. After a gtest change in February 2016, it is now
agnostic with respect to the order of these arguments.
This change mechanically updates all uses of these macros to (actual,
expected) by reversing them. This provides consistency with our use of
the logging CHECK_EQ and DCHECK_EQ macros, and makes for better
readability by ordinary native speakers. The rough (but working!)
conversion tool is
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/466727/1/rewrite_expectassert_eq.py,
and “git cl format” cleaned up its output.
EXPECT_NE and ASSERT_NE never had a preferred ordering. gtest never made
a judgment that one side or the other needed to provide an “unexpected”
value. Consequently, some code used (unexpected, actual) while other
code used (actual, unexpected). For consistency with the new EXPECT_EQ
and ASSERT_EQ usage, as well as consistency with CHECK_NE and DCHECK_NE,
this change also updates these use sites to (actual, unexpected) where
one side can be called “unexpected” as, for example, std::string::npos
can be. Unfortunately, this portion was a manual conversion.
References:
https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/docs/Primer.md#binary-comparison
https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/77d6b173380332b1c1bc540532641f410ec82d65
https://github.com/google/googletest/pull/713
Change-Id: I978fef7c94183b8b1ef63f12f5ab4d6693626be3
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/466727
Reviewed-by: Scott Graham <scottmg@chromium.org>
2017-04-04 00:35:21 -04:00
|
|
|
ASSERT_EQ(ReadWString(handles_3->read.get()), L"OK");
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_EQ(ReadWString(handles_2->read.get()), L"OK");
|
|
|
|
ASSERT_EQ(ReadWString(handles_1->read.get()), L"OK");
|
win: Crash handler server
This replaces the registration server, and adds dispatch to a delegate
on crash requests.
(As you are already aware) we went around in circles on trying to come
up with a slightly-too-fancy threading design. All of them seemed to
have problems when it comes to out of order events, and orderly
shutdown, so I've gone back to something not-too-fancy.
Two named pipe instances (that clients connect to) are created. These
are used only for registration (which should take <1ms), so 2 should be
sufficient to avoid any waits. When a client registers, we duplicate
an event to it, which is used to signal when it wants a dump taken.
The server registers threadpool waits on that event, and also on the
process handle (which will be signalled when the client process exits).
These requests (in particular the taking of the dump) are serviced
on the threadpool, which avoids us needing to manage those threads,
but still allows parallelism in taking dumps. On process termination,
we use an IO Completion Port to post a message back to the main thread
to request cleanup. This complexity is necessary so that we can
unregister the threadpool waits without being on the threadpool, which
we need to do synchronously so that we can be sure that no further
callbacks will execute (and expect to have the client data around
still).
In a followup, I will readd support for DumpWithoutCrashing -- I don't
think it will be too difficult now that we have an orderly way to
clean up client records in the server.
R=cpu@chromium.org, mark@chromium.org, jschuh@chromium.org
BUG=crashpad:1,crashpad:45
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1301853002 .
2015-09-03 11:06:17 -07:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
} // namespace test
|
|
|
|
} // namespace crashpad
|