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: https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-tcp.c#L6500 . Moshe On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:31 AM Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 method signatures as needed. > > Thanks, > Evan > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:52 Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> 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 >> in-scope/out-of-scope tracking and assertion, as well as make the code >> more amenable to future refactors like (potentially) concurrency. >> >> 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 still only >> ever one which gets reused for each packet. >> >> Is this correct? If so, does it make sense to start replacing >> `wmem_packet_scope()` calls with `pinfo->pool` when pinfo is already >> in scope? >> >> Thanks, >> Evan >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
