From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] mem: fix potential resource leak Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:39:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4d15c97e68ce89c0915935c6c04099a9eb950232.1524650130.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <20180427151831.GD80648@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7517CEB for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:39:37 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20180427151831.GD80648@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 27-Apr-18 4:18 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:56:42AM +0100, Anatoly Burakov wrote: >> We close fd if we managed to find it in the list of allocated >> segment lists (which should always be the case under normal >> conditions), but if we didn't, the fd was leaking. Close it if >> we couldn't find it in the segment list. This is not an issue >> as if the segment is zero length, we're getting rid of it >> anyway, so there's no harm in not storing the fd anywhere. >> >> Coverity issue: 272568 >> > > This coverity issue indicates two resource leaks, while I think this patch > only closes one of them. The other issue is actually a false positive. We couldn't have gotten the fd if there wasn't a tailq entry for that fd, but if we don't resize and remove the file, we want to keep the fd. So the "int fd" goes out of scope, but actually it's stored in the tailq, and thus doesn't leak. -- Thanks, Anatoly