Summary: base: Store string pointer in extended SaNameT at an aligned address [#1028] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1028 Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.5.x, default(4.6) Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services n OpenSAF services n Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 94b8ee209132a838e6f27d7daff368a2c8f1909d Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:15:09 +0200 base: Store string pointer in extended SaNameT at an aligned address [#1028] The string pointer stored inside the SaNameT structure for long DNs (longer than 255 bytes) was not detected by Valgrind, since it was not stored on an aligned address. This had the effect that allocated memory may have been reported as "definitely lost" rather than "still reachable" by the Valgrind memory leak detection. The fix is to store the pointer at an aligned address. It will only work when the SaNameT structure itself is stored at an aligned address (which is not guaranteed since it contains nothing larger than an 16-bit integer), but it should work in many cases. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/core/common/osaf_extended_name.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Run Valgrind on some program that uses malloc() to allocate memory that is passes to saAisNameLend(), and doesn't free the allocated memory or the SaNameT structures before exiting the program. The OpenSAF service NTF is one program that exhibits this behaviour. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- The allocated memory passed to saAisNameLend() shall be reported as "still reachable" rather than "definitely lost" by Valgrind. Note that this only works as long as the SaNameT structures are allocated at 32-bit/64-bit aligned addresses (depending on architecture). Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Ramesh Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
