On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 02:05 +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Svante Signell" <svante.sign...@gmail.com> > To: "rrdtool dev list" <rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:35 PM > Subject: [rrd-developers] RFC: [PATCH] Portability by avoiding PATH_MAX > > > > Hello, > > > > Here are updated patches for rrdtool/rrd_client.c and > > rrdtool/rrd_daemon.c. We had some discussions in August last year. I > > created a branch and the diffs are against latest git. I've run the > > code, especially rrd_daemon with valgrind under Linux, but need some > > help to check that also rrd_client works OK (maybe rrd_daemon too). Can > > you help me with test cases to run the execute the code modified paths. > > I know one application using rrdtool, lm-sensors (build-dependency on > > librrd2-dev), but am not sure my computers have the sensors to be a good > > test case. > > > > Note that the modified functions get_path() and get_abs_path() are > > static, so they don't change the API. > > This looks like it would cause a lot of unnessary malloc free surely > the correct fix for this is to fix the OS config to define PATH_MAX. > > Quick look at the patches also show its quite broken:- > > + tmp = malloc(len); > + snprintf(tmp, len, "%s/%s", config_base_dir, *filename); > *filename = tmp; > + free(tmp); > > So you just malloced some memory, assigned the pointer to it then freed > the memory, so your now going to get a use after free and BOOM!
This is of course wrong, thanks! You see the reason for having tests together with valgrind to find out these problems. Did you find more? _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
