On 09/04/2015 01:56 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:09:36PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> please see simple patch set fixing minor memory leaks of providers. I'm not aware
of any user hitting those currently.
>
> Thanks!
> From ef62f0245cde314fd11b1cd2584589e018ede050 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:02:42 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/4] AD: fix minor memory leak
>
> ---
> src/providers/ad/ad_common.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/providers/ad/ad_common.c b/src/providers/ad/ad_common.c
> index
130cdeb613aae3843f7453a478815daaae6aab77..aca550581708e6501c99f1c69e3c5ec9303d3b8c 100644
> --- a/src/providers/ad/ad_common.c
> +++ b/src/providers/ad/ad_common.c
> @@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ ad_failover_init(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx, struct be_ctx *bectx,
> TALLOC_CTX *tmp_ctx;
> struct ad_service *service;
>
> - tmp_ctx = talloc_new(mem_ctx);
> + tmp_ctx = talloc_new(NULL);
I don't think we should do this kind of change, it's quite possible
we'll start using talloc pools soon which will make us migrate from
using NULL context.
OK, I just find the usage of tmp_ctx somewhat awkward in this
function. I think function would be better off without it completely - service would be
allocated directly on mem_ctx. But I agree this is not a bug and possibly just a matter of
personal
preference, so we can ignore that.
Just make sure tmp_ctx is freed as appropriate.
I haven't reviewed the rest of the patches.
> if (!tmp_ctx) return ENOMEM;
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel