Hi All, I wish I had caught this sooner, but it appears that prior to committing the patch I submitted for this memory leak, it was modified and is missing an important part of the fix. Looking at the upstream source code in destroy_addr() we can see: 101 static void 102 destroy_addr(addr) 103 struct address_cache *addr; 104 { 105 if (addr == NULL) 106 return; 107 if (addr->ac_host != NULL) { 108 free(addr->ac_host); 109 addr->ac_host = NULL; 110 } 111 if (addr->ac_netid != NULL) { 112 free(addr->ac_netid); 113 addr->ac_netid = NULL; 114 } 115 if (addr->ac_uaddr != NULL) { 116 free(addr->ac_uaddr); 117 addr->ac_uaddr = NULL; 118 } 119 if (addr->ac_taddr != NULL) { 120 if(addr->ac_taddr->buf != NULL) { 121 free(addr->ac_taddr->buf); 122 addr->ac_taddr->buf = NULL; 123 } 124 addr->ac_taddr = NULL; 125 } 126 free(addr); 127 addr = NULL; 128 } It seems clear that this code is still not freeing addr->ac_taddr. In the patch I originally submitted to this mailing list, I made sure to free that pointer (see below): diff --git a/src/rpcb_clnt.c b/src/rpcb_clnt.c index 630f9ad..539b521 100644 --- a/src/rpcb_clnt.c +++ b/src/rpcb_clnt.c @@ -102,19 +102,31 @@ static void destroy_addr(addr) struct address_cache *addr; { - if (addr == NULL) + if (addr == NULL) { return; - if(addr->ac_host != NULL) + } + if(addr->ac_host != NULL) { free(addr->ac_host); - if(addr->ac_netid != NULL) + addr->ac_host = NULL; + } + if(addr->ac_netid != NULL) { free(addr->ac_netid); - if(addr->ac_uaddr != NULL) + addr->ac_netid = NULL; + } + if(addr->ac_uaddr != NULL) { free(addr->ac_uaddr); + addr->ac_uaddr = NULL; + } if(addr->ac_taddr != NULL) { - if(addr->ac_taddr->buf != NULL) + if(addr->ac_taddr->buf != NULL) { free(addr->ac_taddr->buf); + addr->ac_taddr->buf = NULL; + } + free(addr->ac_taddr); + addr->ac_taddr = NULL; } free(addr); + addr = NULL; } I did not notice that the patch had been modified when it was committed upstream. I wish I had more carefully verified what had been committed back then. Sorry I neglected to do so. We finally got our hands on the updated rpm with the fixes that went in upstream and are still seeing this memory leak. That is how I noticed the problem and investigated the issue once again. I believe the piece of the fix that was dropped from the patch should be: diff --git a/src/rpcb_clnt.c b/src/rpcb_clnt.c index 68fe69a..d909efc 100644 --- a/src/rpcb_clnt.c +++ b/src/rpcb_clnt.c @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ destroy_addr(addr) free(addr->ac_taddr->buf); addr->ac_taddr->buf = NULL; } + free(addr->ac_taddr); addr->ac_taddr = NULL; } free(addr); Would love to get this addressed and pulled into a RHEL version as soon as possible. -Herb On 8/1/23, 2:34 AM, "Yongcheng Yang" <yoyang@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:yoyang@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Signed-off-by: Herb Wartens <wartens2@xxxxxxxx <mailto:wartens2@xxxxxxxx>> --- src/rpcb_clnt.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/rpcb_clnt.c b/src/rpcb_clnt.c index 630f9ad..539b521 100644 --- a/src/rpcb_clnt.c +++ b/src/rpcb_clnt.c @@ -102,19 +102,31 @@ static void destroy_addr(addr) struct address_cache *addr; { - if (addr == NULL) + if (addr == NULL) { return; - if(addr->ac_host != NULL) + } + if(addr->ac_host != NULL) { free(addr->ac_host); - if(addr->ac_netid != NULL) + addr->ac_host = NULL; + } + if(addr->ac_netid != NULL) { free(addr->ac_netid); - if(addr->ac_uaddr != NULL) + addr->ac_netid = NULL; + } + if(addr->ac_uaddr != NULL) { free(addr->ac_uaddr); + addr->ac_uaddr = NULL; + } if(addr->ac_taddr != NULL) { - if(addr->ac_taddr->buf != NULL) + if(addr->ac_taddr->buf != NULL) { free(addr->ac_taddr->buf); + addr->ac_taddr->buf = NULL; + } + free(addr->ac_taddr); + addr->ac_taddr = NULL; } free(addr); + addr = NULL; } /* -- 2.31.1