On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 03:40:44PM -0500, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:27:21PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:13:39PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > >
> > > > - CHECK_PE and CHECK_IPV4 as part of CHECK_COMPAT_SVC use
> > > > 'return' and we can leak svc in ipvs_get_service()
> > > >
> > > > - in ipvs_get_service() CHECK_PE does not need to be called,
> > > > it is already part of CHECK_COMPAT_SVC
> > >
> > > Yes. I'm tempted to remove these macros due to the 'return'
> > > issue. Thoughts?
> >
> > May be they can use 'goto' instead of 'return':
> >
> > if (condition) {
> > errno = XXX;
> > goto out_err;
> > }
> >
> > and funcs can have such exit point:
> >
> > out_err:
> > free stuff on error
> > return ret;
>
> OK. It looks like ipvs_get_service() is the only function with a
> potential leak. The other functions that call any of the CHECK_*
> macros will just get an 'out_err: return -1'.
>
> I also noticed that CHECK_COMPAT_DEST can be removed. This macro
> simply calls CHECK_IPV4, which is also called by CHECK_COMPAT_SVC. I
> noticed that CHECK_COMPAT_DEST is only called after CHECK_COMPAT_SVC,
> so this macro can be removed entirely. Agree?
That sounds reasonable to me.
>
> > > > - ipvs_get_service uses malloc but later calls CHECK_PE, may be
> > > > malloc should be changed with calloc
> > >
> > > Aside from the fact that CHECK_PE could return without freeing memory,
> > > I don't see the problem here.
> >
> > malloc does not initialize the memory and checking of
> > svc->pe_name[0] in CHECK_PE would give random results.
>
> I see. Thanks.
>
> Ryan
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
