On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:17 PM +0100, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 09:21 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:13 PM +0100, Marc Hartmayer
>> wrote:
>>> We have to allocate first and if, and only if, it was successful we
On 02/09/2017 09:13 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
We have to allocate first and if, and only if, it was successful we
can set the count. A segfault has occurred in
virNetServerServiceNewPostExecRestart() when VIR_ALLOC_N(svc->socks,
n) has failed, but svc->nsocsk = n was already set. Thus
On 02/09/2017 09:21 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:13 PM +0100, Marc Hartmayer
wrote:
We have to allocate first and if, and only if, it was successful we
can set the count. A segfault has occurred in
virNetServerServiceNewPostExecRestart()
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:13 PM +0100, Marc Hartmayer
wrote:
> We have to allocate first and if, and only if, it was successful we
> can set the count. A segfault has occurred in
> virNetServerServiceNewPostExecRestart() when VIR_ALLOC_N(svc->socks,
> n) has failed,
We have to allocate first and if, and only if, it was successful we
can set the count. A segfault has occurred in
virNetServerServiceNewPostExecRestart() when VIR_ALLOC_N(svc->socks,
n) has failed, but svc->nsocsk = n was already set. Thus
virObejectUnref(svc) was called and therefore it was