Re: [PATCH 0/8] Coverity fixes for vchan-socket-proxy

["Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:59:55PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:36 PM Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:50 PM Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This series addresses some Coverity reports.  To handle closing FDs, a
> > > state struct is introduced to track FDs closed in both main() and
> > > data_loop().
> >
> > I've realized the changes here are insufficient to handle the FD
> > leaks.  That is, the accept()-ed FDs need to be closed inside the for
> > loop so they aren't leaked with each iteration.  I'll re-work for a
> > v2.
> 
> So it turns out this series doesn't leak FDs in the for loop.  FDs are
> necessarily closed down in data_loop() when the read() returns 0.  The
> only returns from data_loop() are after the FDs have been closed.
> data_loop() and some of the functions it calls will call exit(1) on
> error, but that won't leak FDs.
> 
> Please review this series.  Sorry for the confusion.

For the whole series:

Reviewed-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]