Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*libattr\s+\-\s+severe\s+memory\s+leaks\s+from\s+attr_copy_file\(\)\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Zdenek Prikryl <zprikryl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:50:18 +0100
Hello, libattr's function attr_copy_file() seems to be producing severe memory leaks. I'm sending a patch which removes sources of leaks. Regards. -- Zdenek Prikryl <zprikryl@xxxxxxxxxx> diff -up att
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00331.html (8,203 bytes)

2. Re: libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <arekm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:04:18 +0100
free(NULL) is fine (on Linux at least) -- Arkadiusz Mikiewicz PLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.pl http://ftp.pld-linux.org/
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00332.html (6,998 bytes)

3. Re: libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Shimmin <timothy.shimmin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:08:26 +1100
Exactly - in most implementations for free I would say NULL is just fine. And the variable, text, is assigned straight away before any use, so I missed where the problem is. --Tim
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00342.html (9,130 bytes)

4. Re: libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Zdenek Prikryl <zprikryl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:04:17 +0100
The memory leak is really there. Look: 54 attr_parse_attr_conf(struct error_context *ctx) ... 66 repeat: 67 text = malloc(size_guess + 1); 68 if (!text) 69 goto fail; 70 71 if ((file = fopen(ATTR_CO
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00352.html (8,850 bytes)

5. Re: libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:31:12 -0600
The patch you attached looks good to me, thanks. -Eric
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00360.html (8,578 bytes)

6. Re: libattr - severe memory leaks from attr_copy_file() (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Shimmin <timothy.shimmin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:33:13 +1100
Hi Zdenek, Oh okay. I see. I was looking at the "fail" case. Hmmm.... the direct return case. The simpler patch looks better - cool. So I now worry about all the cases where we call return directly.
/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00369.html (12,542 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu