On 03/18/2013 06:28 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/18/2013 02:07 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> virStorageBackendRBDRefreshPool() first allocates an array big enough
>> to hold 1024 names, then calls rbd_list(), which returns ERANGE if the
>> array isn't big enough. When that happens, the VIR_ALLOC_N is called
>> again with a larger size. Unfortunately, the original array isn't
>> freed before allocating a new one.
>> ---
>> src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
>> b/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
>> index 8a0e517..e815192 100644
>> --- a/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
>> +++ b/src/storage/storage_backend_rbd.c
>> @@ -317,6 +317,7 @@ static int virStorageBackendRBDRefreshPool(virConnectPtr
>> conn ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>> VIR_WARN("%s", _("A problem occurred while listing RBD
>> images"));
>> goto cleanup;
>> }
>> + VIR_FREE(names);
> This works, but is possibly less efficient than using VIR_REALLOC_N
> instead of VIR_ALLOC_N in the first place.
I had thought of that, but figured that internally it would likely be
the same operation as a free + new malloc, but would also do a copy from
the old region to new, which is pointless in this case, since the old
memory hasn't been set to anything and will be immediately overwritten
anyway.
> ACK, since it's not on the
> hot path.
>
I'm pushing as is.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
