On 05/24/2010 12:10 PM, Nigel Jones wrote:
From 6c8183e83fbfeb031b16cf9ae2d41b16e3145378 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nigel Jones <dev@nigelj.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:05:53 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Patch 2 memory leaks.
1. Ensure that memory is free'd from udevAddOneDevice() if the return value will be non-zero 2. Release udev device reference in udevEventHandleCallback() similar to the release of the reference in udevProcessDeviceListEntry() --- src/node_device/node_device_udev.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c index a1ced87..4d0effa 100644 --- a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c +++ b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c @@ -1296,6 +1296,9 @@ static int udevAddOneDevice(struct udev_device *device) ret = 0;
out: + if (ret != 0) { + virNodeDeviceDefFree(def); /* Free assigned memory to prevent leaks */ + } return ret; }
@@ -1426,6 +1429,7 @@ static void udevEventHandleCallback(int watch ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, }
out: + udev_device_unref(device); return; }
Good catch on both of these. I had to convince myself that udev_device_unref() would handle a NULL device (in the case of error before we allocated device), but it does. ACK -- Chris Lalancette