Summary: amfnd: errors reported by valgrind (V2) [#716] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 716 Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N, Nagendra Pull request to: Affected branch(es): default, opensaf-4.4.x Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- Ran a set of basic tests with valgrind turned on, and the errors reported in the ticket are no longer present. Changes since V1 review: * removed handling of out of memory situations, and replaced with osafassert(p != NULL) * added more comments to indicate when free() is used on AVSV_ATTR_NAME_VAL pointers changeset d5b481b75da0ee4518dc65567ee41a4db1974eb1 Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:03:21 +1100 amfnd: fix errors reported by valgrind [#716] * replace call to malloc(AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO) with new() in comp.cc, so it is in line with the rest of amfnd when allocating AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO. This eliminates the mixing of malloc/new/delete. * add functions amf_cbk_copy() and amf_csi_attr_list_copy(), which are based on the avsv equivalent but "C++ aware". This is done to avoid mixing of malloc/new/delete when dealing with 'SaAmfProtectionGroupNotificationT' in 'AVSV_AMF_CBK_INFO'. * malloc/free are now used whenever a AVSV_ATTR_NAME_VAL structure is created or deleted. Previously, there were mixed usages of malloc/new/free/delete resulting in mismatches. * fix a few places where delete was used, instead of delete []. * in pg.cc, don't set cbk_info to NULL before deleting it. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/amfnd.cc | 4 +- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/cbq.cc | 4 +- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/ckpt_updt.cc | 18 ++++++--- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/comp.cc | 11 ++--- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/compdb.cc | 6 +- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/include/avnd_util.h | 2 + osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/pg.cc | 6 +-- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/sidb.cc | 22 ++++++++---- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/susm.cc | 9 +++- osaf/services/saf/amf/amfnd/util.cc | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 10 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel