Hi Dirkjan, On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:08:23PM +0200, Dirkjan Bussink wrote: > > On 02 May 2014, at 11:37, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That said, one of your fix introduces a bug here : > > > > diff --git a/src/haproxy.c b/src/haproxy.c > > index ed2ff21..c1ec783 100644 > > --- a/src/haproxy.c > > +++ b/src/haproxy.c > > @@ -1607,6 +1607,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > exit(0); /* parent must leave */ > > } > > > > + free(children); > > /* if we're NOT in QUIET mode, we should now close the 3 first > > FDs to ensure > > * that we can detach from the TTY. We MUST NOT do it in other > > cases since > > * it would have already be done, and 0-2 would have been > > affected to listening > > > > Indeed, children is used a few lines below : > > > > if (proc == global.nbproc) { > > if (global.mode & MODE_SYSTEMD) { > > for (proc = 0; proc < global.nbproc; proc++) > > while (waitpid(children[proc], NULL, > > 0) == -1 && errno == EINTR); > > } > > exit(0); /* parent must leave */ > > } > > > > This is very strange, because it looks like this code is right above the > free(children) call, not below.
Damn, you're right, I'm sorry for the confusion. I was the one looking at the wrong place. > At least that it what it looks like to me. I > check against latest master just now and see no usage of children anymore > after the free() call. Great, that's better this way. > I did update the patch by setting NULL and also removing the conditionals for > the other free() calls. > > Attached the fixed patch, if I?m looking in the wrong place for the > free(children) issue, please let me know! No you were right, and I was wrong, don't worry :-) I've just applied your patch. Thank you! Willy
