Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
Hi, make sense, commited to svn. Alex > Am 18.10.2016 um 22:37 schrieb Donald Jackson <donaldjs...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Alex, > > Personally I think we should not reject PDU's that have this case. While it > is pointless to send the same TLV multiple times in our case, we have > established that this behavior is implicitly 'ok' by having Kannel accept > these since the meta data patch (+- 7 years now). Changing this behavior > would potentially cause issues for users with no real gain. > > Thanks, > Donald > > On 18 October 2016 at 13:18, Alexander Malysh <amal...@kannel.org > <mailto:amal...@kannel.org>> wrote: > Hi, > > good catch! But there is a question: should we really accept such wrong PDUs > or reject them? > IMHO rejecting those would be the correct behavior but I don't see in SMPP > spec that case described. > > Thanks, > Alexander Malysh > > From: Stipe Tolj <st...@kannel.org> <mailto:st...@kannel.org> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 07:24 PM > To: > Cc: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> <mailto:devel@kannel.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c > Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: > > +1 from me. > > yep, good catch Donald. > > +1 for it. > > If no objections, will commit. > > -- > Best Regards, > Stipe Tolj > > --- > Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany > > Kannel Foundation tolj.org <http://tolj.org/> system architecture > http://www.kannel.org/ <http://www.kannel.org/> http://www.tolj.org/ > <http://www.tolj.org/> > > stolj at kannel.org <http://kannel.org/> st at tolj.org <http://tolj.org/> > --- > > > > -- > Donald Jackson
Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
Hi Alex, Personally I think we should not reject PDU's that have this case. While it is pointless to send the same TLV multiple times in our case, we have established that this behavior is implicitly 'ok' by having Kannel accept these since the meta data patch (+- 7 years now). Changing this behavior would potentially cause issues for users with no real gain. Thanks, Donald On 18 October 2016 at 13:18, Alexander Malysh <amal...@kannel.org> wrote: > Hi, > > good catch! But there is a question: should we really accept such wrong > PDUs or reject them? > IMHO rejecting those would be the correct behavior but I don't see in SMPP > spec that case described. > > Thanks, > Alexander Malysh > > -- > *From*: Stipe Tolj <st...@kannel.org> <st...@kannel.org> > *Sent*: Monday, September 26, 2016 07:24 PM > *To*: > *Cc*: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> <devel@kannel.org> > *Subject*: Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c > Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: > > +1 from me. > > yep, good catch Donald. > > +1 for it. > > If no objections, will commit. > > -- > Best Regards, > Stipe Tolj > > --- > Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany > > Kannel Foundation tolj.org system architecture > http://www.kannel.org/ http://www.tolj.org/ > > stolj at kannel.org st at tolj.org > --- > -- Donald Jackson
RE: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
Hi, good catch! But there is a question: should we really accept such wrong PDUs or reject them? IMHO rejecting those would be the correct behavior but I don't see in SMPP spec that case described. Thanks, Alexander Malysh From: Stipe Tolj <st...@kannel.org> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 07:24 PM To: Cc: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: > +1 from me. yep, good catch Donald. +1 for it. If no objections, will commit. -- Best Regards, Stipe Tolj --- Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany Kannel Foundation tolj.org system architecture http://www.kannel.org/ http://www.tolj.org/ stolj at kannel.org st at tolj.org ---
Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: +1 from me. yep, good catch Donald. +1 for it. If no objections, will commit. -- Best Regards, Stipe Tolj --- Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany Kannel Foundation tolj.org system architecture http://www.kannel.org/http://www.tolj.org/ stolj at kannel.org st at tolj.org ---
RE: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
+1 from me. Van: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@kannel.org] Namens Donald Jackson Verzonden: zaterdag 24 september 2016 12:00 Aan: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> Onderwerp: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c Hi all, I have been assisting with a KSMPPD implementation and couldn't figure out why the application was leaking memory. After a long search I found that an SMPP client was sending the same TLV multiple times which was causing lost pointers/memory leaks. I believe this would effect all Kannel derivatives (OpenSMPPBox, Commercial SMPPBox and Bearerbox) in the cases where an incorrectly implemented (or malicious?) client or gateway could be the cause of memory leaks. Herewith patch to fix. Thanks, Donald
[PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c
Hi all, I have been assisting with a KSMPPD implementation and couldn't figure out why the application was leaking memory. After a long search I found that an SMPP client was sending the same TLV multiple times which was causing lost pointers/memory leaks. I believe this would effect all Kannel derivatives (OpenSMPPBox, Commercial SMPPBox and Bearerbox) in the cases where an incorrectly implemented (or malicious?) client or gateway could be the cause of memory leaks. Herewith patch to fix. Thanks, Donald smpp_pdu_tlv_memory_leak.patch Description: Binary data
