On 01/31/2019 03:55 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 31-Jan-19 3:04 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 31/01/2019 15:15, Kevin Traynor: >>> On 01/31/2019 02:10 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>> On 31-Jan-19 11:21 AM, Kevin Traynor wrote: >>>>> On 01/10/2019 01:38 PM, Anatoly Burakov wrote: >>>>>> Currently, we use strdup in a few places to store command-line >>>>>> parameter values for certain internal config values. There are >>>>>> several issues with that. >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, they're never freed, so memory ends up leaking >>>>>> either after EAL exit, or when these command-line options are >>>>>> supplied multiple times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Second of all, they're defined as `const char *`, so they >>>>>> *cannot* be freed even if we wanted to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, strdup may return NULL, which will be stored in the >>>>>> config. For most fields, NULL is a valid value, but for the >>>>>> default prefix, the value is always expected to be valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> To fix all of this, three things are done. First, we change >>>>>> the definitions of these values to `char *` as opposed to >>>>>> `const char *`. This does not break the ABI, and previous >>>>>> code assumes constness (which is more restrictive), so it's >>>>>> safe to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, fix all usages of strdup to check return value, and add >>>>>> a cleanup function that will free the memory occupied by >>>>>> these strings, as well as freeing them before assigning a new >>>>>> value to prevent leaks when parameter is specified multiple >>>>>> times. >>>>>> >>>>>> And finally, add an internal API to query hugefile prefix, so >>>>>> that, absent of a valid value, a default value will be >>>>>> returned, and also fix up all usages of hugefile prefix to >>>>>> use this API instead of accessing hugefile prefix directly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bugzilla ID: 108 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Anatoly - this doesn't have stable or Fixes tags, but the bugzilla >>>>> was reported on 17.11. Is it for backport to stable branches? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It can be. Whether it's worth the effort of backporting is not my >>>> call :) >>>> >>> >>> It's fine for 18.11 branch anyway, just needed a little help due to some >>> changed context. I will send diff to stable list as normal. >> >> Nothing was broken. I see it like an improvement. >> Not sure it is worth the effort. >> > > Well, *technically*, there was a memory leak. For example, if you > specify mbuf pool ops flag multiple times, previously allocated strdup() > call results would be discarded and leaked. > > However, it's such a minor issue that it's indeed likely not worth the > effort. > >
It's already done - just sent it in the batch a few mins ago
