On 10 June 2016 at 12:20, Carlos Falgueras García <carlosfg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Carlos Falgueras García <carlosfg@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/rule.c | 1 + > src/set_elem.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/rule.c b/src/rule.c > index 1e1a138..4c22436 100644 > --- a/src/rule.c > +++ b/src/rule.c > @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ void nftnl_rule_unset(struct nftnl_rule *r, uint16_t attr) > case NFTNL_RULE_POSITION: > case NFTNL_RULE_FAMILY: > case NFTNL_RULE_USERDATA: > + xfree(r->user.data); > break; > } > I think you need to isolate this NFTNL_RULE_USERDATA case from the others by avoiding the fall through. Example: an user calling nftnl_rule_unset() with NFTNL_RULE_FAMILY will free 'r->user.data'. That doesn't seem correct. -- Arturo Borrero González -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
