On 11/02/11 01:25, NeilBrown wrote: > Thanks Jes. > I've applied all of these - using the second version of patch 19. > > I'm not normally very fussed about freeing and closing things shortly before > the process is going to exit anyway, but I'm not against it. And some of > your patches were for other leaks. Hi Neil, I totally agree here. The main reason for applying those fixes is to reduce the S/N ratio from the checking tools. With my latest with these patches applied run I got about 65 warnings whereas I am getting around 105 in the version of mdadm that is in Fedora 16. Some of these are definitely false positives, but I have another set of patches with real fixes coming your way shortly. >> This is the bulk of these for now. Please notice that I haven't >> touched super-ddf.c at all, and that is probably the single biggest >> offender. Also note that I haven't addressed a number of warnings in >> sysfs.c where we know for sure that files aren't bigger than a given >> size. The tool obviously doesn't know this, so it spews warnings when >> we strcpy() content we just read. While the code per-ce is probably >> safe, we may want to switch to strncpy() just to reduce the noise >> ratio? > > Maybe. I hate strncpy because it doesn't reliably nul-terminate but I'm > happy to make the code 'safer' as long as we avoid making it ugly. I couldn't agree more - it is such a mess :( Cheers, Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
