| Message ID | 20240507022239.3113987-1-gaosong@loongson.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | hw/loongarch/virt: Fix memory leak | expand |
On 7/5/24 04:22, Song Gao wrote: > The char pointer 'ramName' point to a block of memory, > but never free it. Use 'g_autofree' to automatically free it. > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1544773 > > Fixes: 0cf1478d6 ("hw/loongarch: Add numa support") > Signed-off-by: Song Gao <gaosong@loongson.cn> > --- > hw/loongarch/virt.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
07.05.2024 05:22, Song Gao wrote: > for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) { > MemoryRegion *nodemem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); > - ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); > + g_autofree char *ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); Can't this be a fixed-size buffer on stack? Maybe I'm old-minded, but such obviously fixed and very small allocations on the heap hurt my eyes ;) /mjt
在 2024/5/7 下午5:52, Michael Tokarev 写道: > 07.05.2024 05:22, Song Gao wrote: > >> for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) { >> MemoryRegion *nodemem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); >> - ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); >> + g_autofree char *ramName = >> g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); > > Can't this be a fixed-size buffer on stack? > > Maybe I'm old-minded, but such obviously fixed and > very small allocations on the heap hurt my eyes ;) > I had send v2 patch. Thanks. Song Gao > /mjt
On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 10:52, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > > 07.05.2024 05:22, Song Gao wrote: > > > for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) { > > MemoryRegion *nodemem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); > > - ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); > > + g_autofree char *ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); > > Can't this be a fixed-size buffer on stack? No, this is a really bad idea. It's a pain to audit that the array really doesn't get overwritten, and if the string we want to write changes, now we have to re-count characters to decide if we need to increase the size of the array. The memory allocation on the heap here is a tiny overhead that we only incur at startup. The g_autofree approach is much better. For this version of the patch: Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> thanks -- PMM
On 7/5/24 04:22, Song Gao wrote: > The char pointer 'ramName' point to a block of memory, > but never free it. Use 'g_autofree' to automatically free it. > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1544773 > > Fixes: 0cf1478d6 ("hw/loongarch: Add numa support") > Signed-off-by: Song Gao <gaosong@loongson.cn> > --- > hw/loongarch/virt.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Thanks, patch queued to hw-misc tree.
diff --git a/hw/loongarch/virt.c b/hw/loongarch/virt.c index c0999878df..ea5100be6d 100644 --- a/hw/loongarch/virt.c +++ b/hw/loongarch/virt.c @@ -887,7 +887,6 @@ static void loongarch_init(MachineState *machine) const CPUArchIdList *possible_cpus; MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine); CPUState *cpu; - char *ramName = NULL; if (!cpu_model) { cpu_model = LOONGARCH_CPU_TYPE_NAME("la464"); @@ -946,7 +945,7 @@ static void loongarch_init(MachineState *machine) for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) { MemoryRegion *nodemem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); - ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); + g_autofree char *ramName = g_strdup_printf("loongarch.node%d.ram", i); memory_region_init_alias(nodemem, NULL, ramName, machine->ram, offset, numa_info[i].node_mem); memory_region_add_subregion(address_space_mem, phyAddr, nodemem);
The char pointer 'ramName' point to a block of memory, but never free it. Use 'g_autofree' to automatically free it. Resolves: Coverity CID 1544773 Fixes: 0cf1478d6 ("hw/loongarch: Add numa support") Signed-off-by: Song Gao <gaosong@loongson.cn> --- hw/loongarch/virt.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)