25.07.2023 12:00, dinglimin wrote:
Replaced a call to malloc() and its respective call to free() with g_malloc() and g_free().Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dingli...@cmss.chinamobile.com> V1 -> V2:if cpu_memory_rw_debug failed, still need to set p=NULL --- semihosting/uaccess.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c index 8018828069..2ac754cdb6 100644 --- a/semihosting/uaccess.c +++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ void *softmmu_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, target_ulong len, bool copy) { - void *p = malloc(len); + void *p = g_malloc(len); if (p && copy) { if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) { - free(p); + g_free(p); p = NULL; } }
Ok, that was the obvious part. Now a next one, also obvious. You changed lock_user to use g_malloc(), but unlock_user still uses free() instead of g_free(). At the very least the other one needs to be changed too. And I'd say the callers should be analyzed to ensure they don't free() the result (they should not, think it is a bug if they do). lock_user/unlock_user (which #defines to softmmu_lock_user/ softmmu_unlock_user in softmmu mode) is used a *lot*. /mjt
