[openib-general] [Fwd: [PATCH] RDMA/iwcm: Fix memory leak]

[Tom Tucker]

If it's truly nul or a ptr, we don't need to (and shouldn't) check, just
call kfree. If it's unitialized, we can't tell anyway and it's a bug --
right? 

Am I missing something?

On 11/9/06 10:41 PM, "Krishna Kumar2" <krkumar2 at in.ibm.com> wrote:

> Though the amso driver (c2_ae_event) is setting the private_data and
> private_data_len together for connect request and connect result, so
> the check may not be necessary. But if the semantics prefer checking
> to make sure, we should follow that (esp if other future drivers may
> also simply set private_data_len to zero without modifying
> private_data).
> 
> I did it this way since cm_conn_rep_handler() had the same check :)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> - KK
> 
>> I think the semantics are that the pointer is only used if
>> private_data_len > 0.  Otherwise, it is undefined.  So I think we should
>> keep the check.  Plus I don't like calling kfree() with a NULL pointer.
>> It just seems wrong...
>> 
>> ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 14:59 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>>>>    if (iw_event->private_data_len)
>>>>>       kfree(iw_event->private_data);
>>>> 
>>>> Kfree checks for a null value, so is the private_data_len check
> necessary?
>>> 
>>> Could private_data be a junk pointer if private_data_len == 0 ?
>>> 
>>>  - R.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> openib-general mailing list
>> openib-general at openib.org
>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>> 
>> To unsubscribe, please visit
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>