Hi Moshe,
Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 17:56, Moshe Kaplan a
écrit :
> Coverity is complaining that some of the allocations made with pinfo ->
> pool are leaking. Is it possible that the pinfo->pool based allocations are
> not always cleaned up?
>
> As an example, CoverityID 1487512 complains about
Coverity is complaining that some of the allocations made with pinfo ->
pool are leaking. Is it possible that the pinfo->pool based allocations are
not always cleaned up?
As an example, CoverityID 1487512 complains about packet-tcp.c's calls to
port_with_resolution_to_str leaking:
FYI this migration has now begun. Going forward, please use pinfo->pool
instead of wmem_packet_scope() in new code when possible. And if anybody
has some time, there are lots of existing dissectors left to convert. I
expect most of them to be pretty straightforward, just adding pinfo to a
few more
On 12/07/21 19:48, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 14:42 João Valverde via Wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>> wrote:
On 12/07/21 19:13, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM João Valverde via Wireshark-dev
>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 14:42 João Valverde via Wireshark-dev <
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/07/21 19:13, Evan Huus wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM João Valverde via Wireshark-dev
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/07/21 16:52, Evan Huus wrote:
> >>> I've been
On 12/07/21 19:13, Evan Huus wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM João Valverde via Wireshark-dev
wrote:
On 12/07/21 16:52, Evan Huus wrote:
I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
wmem_file_scope,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM João Valverde via Wireshark-dev
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/07/21 16:52, Evan Huus wrote:
> > I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
> > of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
> > wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing
On 12/07/21 16:52, Evan Huus wrote:
I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing them around in arguments
(or in pinfo, or something). This would let us drop a bunch of
ocumented in README.wmem
> but still error prone). ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Wireshark-dev On Behalf Of Dr.
> Matthias St. Pierre
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 6:38 PM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Replacing wmem_p
Hi Evan and Pascal,
> > At a first glance, we already have pinfo->pool which maintains the
> > lifetime of the packet_info object. As far as I can reason, this is
> > almost/effectively the same as the existing wmem_packet_scope - it
> > gets cleaned up later in the dissection flow, but there's
Hi Evan,
Le lun. 12 juil. 2021 à 17:52, Evan Huus a écrit :
> I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
> of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
> wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing them around in arguments
> (or in pinfo, or something). This
I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing them around in arguments
(or in pinfo, or something). This would let us drop a bunch of
in-scope/out-of-scope tracking and
12 matches
Mail list logo
