On Sunday 14 October 2012 16:22:17 Sami Kerola wrote:
> +static int shmctl_info_wrapper(int maxid, int id, struct shm_data **shmds,
> + int use_proc)
> +{
> + char skipheader[1024];
> + int i, shmid;
> + struct shm_data *shmdsp;
> +
> + struct shmid_ds shmseg;
> + struct ipc_perm *ipcp = &shmseg.shm_perm;
> +
> + *shmds = xmalloc(sizeof(struct shm_data));
> + shmdsp = *shmds;
could just one line:
shmdsp = *shmds = xmalloc(sizeof(struct shm_data));
> + shmdsp->next = NULL;
> + if (use_proc) {
> + FILE *f;
> + if ((f = fopen(_PATH_PROC_IPCSHM, "r")) == NULL)
> + return -1;
doesn't this leak memory with shmds ?
> + fgets(skipheader, 1024, f);
why not just fseek() ? does that not work on the /proc path ?
> + for (i = 0; !feof(f); i++) {
> + fscanf(f,
> + "%10d %10d %4o " SIZE_SPEC
> + " %5lu %5lu %5lu %5u %5u %5u %5u %10lu %10lu %10lu "
> + SIZE_SPEC " " SIZE_SPEC "\n",
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.key),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.id),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.mode),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_segsz),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_cprid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_lprid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_nattch),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.uid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.gid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.cuid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_perm.cgid),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_atim),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_dtim),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_ctim),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_rss),
> + &(shmdsp->shm_swp)
> + );
shouldn't this check the return of fscanf() ?
> -void do_shm (char format, int use_proc)
> +static void freeshms(struct shm_data *shmds)
> {
> - int maxid, shmid, id;
> - struct shmid_ds shmseg;
> + while (shmds) {
> + struct shm_data *next = shmds->next;
> + free(shmds);
> + shmds = next;
> + }
> + return;
> +}
pointless return statement -> delete
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
