Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: query-watchdog: avoid issues on heap allocation failing #147

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 16, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 5 additions & 6 deletions src/sbd-md.c
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -441,9 +441,9 @@ init_device(struct sbd_context *st)
}
}

out: free(s_node);
out: free(s_mbox);
free(s_node);
free(s_header);
free(s_mbox);
return(rc);
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -556,9 +556,9 @@ slot_allocate(struct sbd_context *st, const char *name)
}
}

out: free(s_node);
out: free(s_mbox);
free(s_node);
free(s_header);
free(s_mbox);
return(rc);
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1279,11 +1279,10 @@ int servant_md(const char *diskname, int mode, const void* argp)
}
}
out:
free(s_header);
free(s_node);
free(s_mbox);
free(s_header);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't s_mbox be first?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Allocation is done header, mbox and then node - so doing it the opposite direction here ...

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... at least that far the theory why it seemed to be more pleased with what I changed around line 560. It actually never complained about this here and iirc at some point it even stopped complaining about the stuff around 560. Had the impression it was some kind of tuning when they brought gcc into fedora. Just to avoid it next time ;-)

close_device(st);
exit(rc);
}