possible memory leak in commands/nand.c?
Robert P. J. Day
rpjday at crashcourse.ca
Mon Dec 21 04:17:29 EST 2009
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Sascha Hauer wrote:
... snip ...
> Yes, indeed, that's a memory hole here. The following should fix
> this. Thanks for noting.
>
> Sascha
>
>
> >From 4e4b03cd61808383a98cb1d10a47025e1909e0bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:41:52 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] commands/nand.c: Fix memory hole
>
> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
> ---
> commands/nand.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/commands/nand.c b/commands/nand.c
> index cbf1058..55b89af 100644
> --- a/commands/nand.c
> +++ b/commands/nand.c
> @@ -224,31 +224,37 @@ static struct file_operations nand_bb_ops = {
> int dev_add_bb_dev(char *path, const char *name)
> {
> struct nand_bb *bb;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
> struct stat s;
>
> bb = xzalloc(sizeof(*bb));
> bb->devname = asprintf("/dev/%s", basename(path));
> + if (!bb->devname)
> + goto out1;
> +
> if (name)
> bb->cdev.name = strdup(name);
> else
> bb->cdev.name = asprintf("%s.bb", basename(path));
>
> + if (!bb->cdev.name)
> + goto out2;
> +
> ret = stat(bb->devname, &s);
> if (ret)
> - goto free_out;
> + goto out3;
>
> bb->raw_size = s.st_size;
>
> bb->fd = open(bb->devname, O_RDWR);
> if (bb->fd < 0) {
> ret = -ENODEV;
> - goto free_out;
> + goto out3;
> }
>
> ret = ioctl(bb->fd, MEMGETINFO, &bb->info);
> if (ret)
> - goto free_out;
> + goto out4;
>
> nand_bb_calc_size(bb);
> bb->cdev.ops = &nand_bb_ops;
> @@ -258,7 +264,13 @@ int dev_add_bb_dev(char *path, const char *name)
>
> return 0;
>
> -free_out:
> +out4:
> + close(bb->fd);
> +out3:
> + free(bb->cdev.name);
> +out2:
> + free(bb->devname);
> +out1:
> free(bb);
> return ret;
> }
i'm not sure this required distinguishing between every one of those
cases since the initial space was allocated with xzalloc(),
guaranteeing it would be zero-filled, and freeing a NULL pointer is
supposed to be a no-op.
so it would have been simpler to just
free(bb->devname); # might be NULL, no problem
free(bb->cdev.name); # same here
free(bb);
but, yes, the above will work.
there's another memory leak i've found, i'll submit a patch for it,
for no other reason than i feel like getting a few patches with my
name on it into the barebox git log. :-)
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
More information about the barebox
mailing list