On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 18:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 18:45, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 18:35 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse
> > > <dw...@infradead.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Durrant <pdurr...@amazon.com>
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <pdurr...@amazon.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <p...@xen.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Hi; Coverity points out a memory leak in this code (CID 1508098):
> > >
> > > > +static struct qemu_xs_handle *libxenstore_open(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct xs_handle *xsh = xs_open(0);
> > > > + struct qemu_xs_handle *h = g_new0(struct qemu_xs_handle,
> > > > 1);
> > >
> > > Here we allocate memory...
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!xsh) {
> > > > + return NULL;
> > >
> > > ...but here we can return without freeing it...
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + h = g_new0(struct qemu_xs_handle, 1);
> > >
> > > ...and here we allocate a second time and overwrite the
> > > pointer to the first allocation.
> > >
> > > Deleting the first call to g_new0() would fix both of these.
> >
> > Indeed, thanks. Do you want a
> >
> > Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk>
> >
> > or would you prefer me to submit the actual patch as described?
>
> If you could submit the patch that would be easiest -- you're in
> a better position to test it.I've been getting Paul to test the parts on actual Xen, so I'll send it and let him test.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
