On 11/30/2011 02:41 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
At 11/30/2011 02:32 PM, Alex Jia Write:
On 11/30/2011 02:20 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
At 11/30/2011 01:57 PM, ajia@redhat.com Write:
From: Alex Jia<ajia@redhat.com>
Detected by Coverity. Leak introduced in commit 109efd7.
Signed-off-by: Alex Jia<ajia@redhat.com> --- src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c index 2563f97..f3f44ca 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c @@ -1224,6 +1224,7 @@ qemuProcessWaitForMonitor(struct qemud_driver* driver,
if (VIR_ALLOC_N(buf, buf_size)< 0) { virReportOOMError(); + VIR_FORCE_CLOSE(logfd); return -1; I think it is better to goto closelog Yeah, I think so before, but 'closelog' label will free 'buf', in fact, we haven't successfully allocate buf is inited to NULL, so it is safe to use VIR_FREE(buf) Agree, will send v2 patch based on your advice. memory to 'buf' variable, I'm not sure whether it is a issue. maybe, the above is a simple way, otherwise, it should be better if we add a check for 'buf' variable in 'closelog' label, it looks like this: ... if (buf) VIR_FREE(buf); If buf is NULL, VIR_FREE(bus) does nothing and is safe. If you add a check for 'buf', make syntax-check will fail. Thanks. Thansk Wen Congyang
...
Chongyang, please correct me if I'm wrong :)
Thanks, Alex
Thanks Wen Congyang
}