fix a possible reentrancy issue.

a client could re-enter the set function when handling the signal
that reverts a property value after an error.  if the old_item is
still in one of the hash tables, that could confuse things.

(Old svn revision: 30419)

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/xfconf/xfconf-cache.c b/xfconf/xfconf-cache.c
index 0bbdd05..ec1e0c6 100644
--- a/xfconf/xfconf-cache.c
+++ b/xfconf/xfconf-cache.c
@@ -466,6 +466,10 @@ xfconf_cache_set_property_reply_handler(DBusGProxy *proxy,
         g_critical("Couldn't find current cache item based on pending call (libxfconf bug?)");
         goto out;
     }
+
+    g_hash_table_remove(cache->old_properties, old_item->property);
+    /* don't destroy old_item yet */
+    g_hash_table_steal(cache->pending_calls, old_item->call);
     
     /* NULL this out so we don't try to cancel it in the remove function */
     old_item->call = NULL;
@@ -495,10 +499,8 @@ xfconf_cache_set_property_reply_handler(DBusGProxy *proxy,
     }
 
 out:
-    if(old_item) {
-        g_hash_table_remove(cache->old_properties, old_item->property);
-        g_hash_table_remove(cache->pending_calls, old_item->call);
-    }
+    if(old_item)
+        xfconf_cache_old_item_free(old_item);
 
     xfconf_cache_mutex_unlock(&cache->cache_lock);
 }