Coverity points out (CID 1400442) that in this code:
if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) {
multifd_pages_clear(p->pages);
multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc);
}
we free p->pages in multifd_pages_clear() but continue to
use it in the following code. We also leak memory, because
multifd_pages_init() returns the pointer to a new MultiFDPages_t
struct but we are ignoring its return value.
Fix both of these bugs by adding the missing assignment of
the newly created struct to p->pages.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
I don't know anything about the multifd code, but this seems like
the obvious fix based on looking at what the clear and init
functions are doing. I have only run 'make check' on this,
so review and testing definitely in order. I think we should
really put this into 4.0, which means ideally I'd like to
commit it to master today or tomorrow, though...
---
migration/ram.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
index f68beeeeffc..1ca9ba77b6a 100644
--- a/migration/ram.c
+++ b/migration/ram.c
@@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams *p, Error **errp)
*/
if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) {
multifd_pages_clear(p->pages);
- multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc);
+ p->pages = multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc);
}
p->pages->used = be32_to_cpu(packet->pages_used);
--
2.20.1
On 4/9/19 5:18 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Coverity points out (CID 1400442) that in this code: > > if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) { > multifd_pages_clear(p->pages); > multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > } > > we free p->pages in multifd_pages_clear() but continue to > use it in the following code. We also leak memory, because > multifd_pages_init() returns the pointer to a new MultiFDPages_t > struct but we are ignoring its return value. > > Fix both of these bugs by adding the missing assignment of > the newly created struct to p->pages. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> > --- > I don't know anything about the multifd code, but this seems like > the obvious fix based on looking at what the clear and init > functions are doing. I have only run 'make check' on this, > so review and testing definitely in order. I think we should > really put this into 4.0, which means ideally I'd like to > commit it to master today or tomorrow, though... > --- > migration/ram.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c > index f68beeeeffc..1ca9ba77b6a 100644 > --- a/migration/ram.c > +++ b/migration/ram.c > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams *p, Error **errp) > */ > if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) { > multifd_pages_clear(p->pages); > - multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > + p->pages = multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > } > > p->pages->used = be32_to_cpu(packet->pages_used); >
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > Coverity points out (CID 1400442) that in this code: > > if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) { > multifd_pages_clear(p->pages); > multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > } > > we free p->pages in multifd_pages_clear() but continue to > use it in the following code. We also leak memory, because > multifd_pages_init() returns the pointer to a new MultiFDPages_t > struct but we are ignoring its return value. > > Fix both of these bugs by adding the missing assignment of > the newly created struct to p->pages. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > --- ouch, good catch. Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> > I don't know anything about the multifd code, but this seems like > the obvious fix based on looking at what the clear and init > functions are doing. I have only run 'make check' on this, > so review and testing definitely in order. I think we should > really put this into 4.0, which means ideally I'd like to > commit it to master today or tomorrow, though... > --- > migration/ram.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c > index f68beeeeffc..1ca9ba77b6a 100644 > --- a/migration/ram.c > +++ b/migration/ram.c > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams *p, Error **errp) > */ > if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) { > multifd_pages_clear(p->pages); > - multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > + p->pages = multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > } > > p->pages->used = be32_to_cpu(packet->pages_used);
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:42, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote: > > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > > Coverity points out (CID 1400442) that in this code: > > > > if (packet->pages_alloc > p->pages->allocated) { > > multifd_pages_clear(p->pages); > > multifd_pages_init(packet->pages_alloc); > > } > > > > we free p->pages in multifd_pages_clear() but continue to > > use it in the following code. We also leak memory, because > > multifd_pages_init() returns the pointer to a new MultiFDPages_t > > struct but we are ignoring its return value. > > > > Fix both of these bugs by adding the missing assignment of > > the newly created struct to p->pages. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > > --- > > ouch, > > good catch. > > Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> Thanks for the quick review. Applied to master for rc3. -- PMM
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.