Wrong implementations of system_code_change/4 in gen_server and

[Gunilla Arendt]

Thank you for the bug report.

A corrected version of gen_server and gen_fsm will be included in a
future release of Erlang/OTP.

Best regards, Gunilla

Romain Lenglet wrote:
> Implementations of system_code_change/4 in gen_server and gen_fsm 
> always call code_change on the module implementing the 
> behaviour, ignoring which module is upgraded.
> This can lead to unexpected bugs.
> 
> For instance, the following code is accepted by gen_server (resp. 
> by gen_fsm), although it is wrong:
> 
> {ok, Pid} = gen_server:start_link(ModA, [], []).
> sys:change_code(Pid, ModB, OldVsn, Extra).
> 
> ModA:code_change/3 is called by gen_server:system_code_change/4 
> although it is ModB that is upgraded. This is wrong.
> 
> 
> I propose the following modification, to call the generic 
> module's code_change/3 only if the module given to 
> sys:change_code/4-5 is this module. It is sufficient to change 
> the definition of gen_server:system_code_change/4 from:
> 
> system_code_change([Name, State, Mod, Time], _Module, OldVsn, 
> Extra) ->
> ...
> 
> to:
> 
> system_code_change([Name, State, Mod, Time], Module, OldVsn, 
> Extra) when Mod == Module ->
> ...
> 
> If the guard does not hold an exception is raised, which is 
> catched by sys:change_code. Everything's safe.
> 
> 
> I also propose a similar change in gen_fsm:
> 
> system_code_change([Name, StateName, StateData, Mod, Time],
>                    _Module, OldVsn, Extra) ->
> 
> should become:
> 
> system_code_change([Name, StateName, StateData, Mod, Time],
>                    Module, OldVsn, Extra) when Mod == Module ->
> 
> 
> 
> gen_event is already compliant with the semantics of 
> sys:change_code/4 -5 and system_code_change/4.
> Nothing to change here.
> 


-- 
_____Gunilla Arendt______________________________________________
EAB/UKI/O OTP Design
Gunilla.Arendt@REDACTED  +46-8-7275730  ecn 851 5730