Re: patch[1/1] fix a memory leak in qxl_screen_init

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



please forgive my ignore.

jwhite you are right, i post a new patch as you suggest.
 
thanks






At 2013-11-19 20:21:35,"Marian Krcmarik" <mkrcmari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >ping.. > >"bigclouds", >are you willing to finish the patch and address Jeremy's comment? It's imo worthy to fix and It would be nice If you can finish that. > >----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeremy White" <jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: "bigclouds" <bigclouds@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 4:28:45 PM >> Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] patch[1/1] fix a memory leak  in qxl_screen_init >>  >> On 11/06/2013 08:48 AM, bigclouds wrote: >> > it is needed to detect the return of qxl_uxa_init  in qxl_screen_init . >>  >> I don't think we have understood each other. >>  >> There is a duplicate allocation; you are trying to fix that.  As I >> understand it, your patch removes the allocation in qxl_uxa_init and >> leaves only the one in qxl_screen_init. >>  >> I said that it seems to me it would be better to remove the allocation >> in qxl_screen_init and leave only the one in qxl_uxa_init. >>  >> If you're concerned about error conditions propagating, you can change >> qxl_driver to check the return status of qxl_uxa_init. >>  >> Cheers, >>  >> Jeremy >>  >> >  >> >  >> >  >> >  >> >  >> >  >> > At 2013-11-06 21:59:58,"Jeremy White" <jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>Nice catch! >> >> >> >>On 11/06/2013 03:37 AM, bigclouds wrote: >> >>> hi, it allocate twice memory for qxl->uxa in function qxl_screen_init and >> >>> qxl_uxa_init >> >>> ----------------- >> >>> diff --git a/src/qxl_driver.c b/src/qxl_driver.c >> >>> index 91ba6c2..6be61e4 100644 >> >>> --- a/src/qxl_driver.c >> >>> +++ b/src/qxl_driver.c >> >>> @@ -746,7 +746,9 @@ qxl_screen_init (SCREEN_INIT_ARGS_DECL) >> >>>       } >> >>>       qxl->uxa = uxa_driver_alloc (); >> >>> - >> >>> +    if (qxl->uxa == NULL) >> >>> +return FALSE; >> >>> + >> >> >> >>Wouldn't it be better to just delete this instance of the >> >>allocation and leave it all in qxl_uxa.c? >> >> >> >>Also, just a kibitz, but most open source projects require >> >>a full name on a submitted patch. >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>Jeremy >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Spice-devel mailing list >> >>Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel >> >  >> >  >> >  >>  >> _______________________________________________ >> Spice-devel mailing list >> Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel >> 


Attachment: 0001-fix-memory-leak-when-alloc-uxa.patch
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]