Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
semihosting/uaccess.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c
index dc587d73bc..7788ead9b2 100644
--- a/semihosting/uaccess.c
+++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c
@@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
void *uaccess_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
target_ulong len, bool copy)
{
- void *p = malloc(len);
+ void *p = g_try_malloc(len);
if (p && copy) {
if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) {
- free(p);
+ g_free(p);
p = NULL;
}
}
@@ -87,5 +87,5 @@ void uaccess_unlock_user(CPUArchState *env, void *p,
if (len) {
cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 1);
}
- free(p);
+ g_free(p);
}
--
2.30.0.windows.2
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:06:28PM +0800, dinglimin wrote:
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:06:28 +0800
> From: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] semihosting/uaccess.c: Replaced a malloc call with g_malloc
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.0.windows.2
>
> Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> ---
> semihosting/uaccess.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Also cc Michael and qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.
I understand the simple cleanup can cc qemu-trivial@nongnu.org. ;-)
Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
>
> diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> index dc587d73bc..7788ead9b2 100644
> --- a/semihosting/uaccess.c
> +++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
> void *uaccess_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
> target_ulong len, bool copy)
> {
> - void *p = malloc(len);
> + void *p = g_try_malloc(len);
> if (p && copy) {
> if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) {
> - free(p);
> + g_free(p);
> p = NULL;
> }
> }
> @@ -87,5 +87,5 @@ void uaccess_unlock_user(CPUArchState *env, void *p,
> if (len) {
> cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 1);
> }
> - free(p);
> + g_free(p);
> }
> --
> 2.30.0.windows.2
Hi,
On 26/2/24 10:06, dinglimin wrote:
> Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> ---
> semihosting/uaccess.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> index dc587d73bc..7788ead9b2 100644
> --- a/semihosting/uaccess.c
> +++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
> void *uaccess_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
> target_ulong len, bool copy)
> {
> - void *p = malloc(len);
> + void *p = g_try_malloc(len);
> if (p && copy) {
> if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) {
> - free(p);
> + g_free(p);
> p = NULL;
> }
> }
This seems dangerous, now all users of uaccess_lock_user() must
use g_free(), in particular lock_user_string() which is used more
than a hundred of times:
$ git grep -w lock_user_string | wc -l
116
> @@ -87,5 +87,5 @@ void uaccess_unlock_user(CPUArchState *env, void *p,
> if (len) {
> cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 1);
> }
> - free(p);
> + g_free(p);
> }
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:49, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26/2/24 10:06, dinglimin wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> > ---
> > semihosting/uaccess.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > index dc587d73bc..7788ead9b2 100644
> > --- a/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > +++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
> > void *uaccess_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
> > target_ulong len, bool copy)
> > {
> > - void *p = malloc(len);
> > + void *p = g_try_malloc(len);
> > if (p && copy) {
> > if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) {
> > - free(p);
> > + g_free(p);
> > p = NULL;
> > }
> > }
>
> This seems dangerous, now all users of uaccess_lock_user() must
> use g_free(), in particular lock_user_string() which is used more
> than a hundred of times:
Users of lock_user_string() and other lock_user() functions are
supposed to unlock via unlock_user(); if they directly call either
free() or g_free() they have a bug.
-- PMM
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/2/24 10:06, dinglimin wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: dinglimin <dinglimin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> > ---
> > semihosting/uaccess.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/semihosting/uaccess.c b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > index dc587d73bc..7788ead9b2 100644
> > --- a/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > +++ b/semihosting/uaccess.c
> > @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
> > void *uaccess_lock_user(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
> > target_ulong len, bool copy)
> > {
> > - void *p = malloc(len);
> > + void *p = g_try_malloc(len);
> > if (p && copy) {
> > if (cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 0)) {
> > - free(p);
> > + g_free(p);
> > p = NULL;
> > }
> > }
>
> This seems dangerous, now all users of uaccess_lock_user() must
> use g_free(), in particular lock_user_string() which is used more
> than a hundred of times:
This is not true for many years now.
GLib is hardcoded to always use the system allocator, so g_malloc
can be freely mixed with free, and vica-verca.
Using 'g_free' is stylistically preferred, but not functionally
required.
>
> $ git grep -w lock_user_string | wc -l
> 116
>
> > @@ -87,5 +87,5 @@ void uaccess_unlock_user(CPUArchState *env, void *p,
> > if (len) {
> > cpu_memory_rw_debug(env_cpu(env), addr, p, len, 1);
> > }
> > - free(p);
> > + g_free(p);
> > }
>
>
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.