Fix ConcurrentModificationException in updateLoggers()

[ppkarwasz]

The InternalLoggerRegistry implementation introduced in version 2.24.2 did not return a copy of the registry, when InternalLoggerRegistry.getLoggers() was called. This could lead to a ConcurrentModificationException if a thread creates a new logger, while another thread calls LoggerContext.updateLoggers().

Closes #3234

[garydgregory]

Hi all,

Does this mean a 2.24.3 is around the corner?

[ppkarwasz]

Does this mean a 2.24.3 is around the corner?

@garydgregory, I would wait a couple of weeks to see if other bugs are reported, but, yes, I think we should release a 2.24.3.

We can also release 2.25.0, but that will bring other problems and I have some long term plans for 2.24.x.

[ppkarwasz]

@tnleeuw,

I removed the usage of forEach() in 4fa2d54. Could you review the changes?

[tnleeuw]

@tnleeuw,

I removed the usage of forEach() in 4fa2d54. Could you review the changes?

Looks good to me!

[kelunik]

@garydgregory, I would wait a couple of weeks to see if other bugs are reported, but, yes, I think we should release a 2.24.3.

Why? Can't you just release 2.24.4 if another bug is found?

[garydgregory]

@kelunik
Because it takes time and effort for the release manager to create a release candidate and it takes time for PMC members to review that candidate. It's not free even though it might look free from the outside.

[ppkarwasz]

@garydgregory, I would wait a couple of weeks to see if other bugs are reported, but, yes, I think we should release a 2.24.3.

Why? Can't you just release 2.24.4 if another bug is found?

An Apache release process requires at least three maintainers and has a 72 hours voting period. Unless the reported problem affects most users, my personal policy is to wait a week or two to give users the time to report other problems.

I will start the release process for 2.24.3 tomorrow, which will contain a fix to this bug and the one reported in #3252 (a strange interaction between Spring Boot, ActiveMQ and Log4j API).

[kelunik]

Thanks for providing these details!