Hi Christian,
On 03/16/2016 01:33 PM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Fixing lpm6 regarding a similar issue showed that that in rte_lpm_free lpm
> might not be freed if it didn't find a te (early return)
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 8 ++------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> index ccaaa2a..d5fa1f8 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
> @@ -360,12 +360,8 @@ rte_lpm_free_v20(struct rte_lpm_v20 *lpm)
> if (te->data == (void *) lpm)
> break;
> }
> - if (te == NULL) {
> - rte_rwlock_write_unlock(RTE_EAL_TAILQ_RWLOCK);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - TAILQ_REMOVE(lpm_list, te, next);
> + if (te != NULL)
> + TAILQ_REMOVE(lpm_list, te, next);
>
> rte_rwlock_write_unlock(RTE_EAL_TAILQ_RWLOCK);
>
>
I've just seen you had already posted a series on this topic.
It looks that some free() are missing in lpm.c:
Could you please check my version of the patch (which was not as
complete as your series)?
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/11526/
Regards,
Olivier
