qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 06/10] slirp/misc: check return value of mall


From: zhanghailiang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 06/10] slirp/misc: check return value of malloc()
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:44:43 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1

On 2014/8/8 17:43, Alex Bennée wrote:

zhanghailiang writes:

Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang<address@hidden>
---
  slirp/misc.c | 9 +++++++--
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/slirp/misc.c b/slirp/misc.c
index b8eb74c..9b457ad 100644
--- a/slirp/misc.c
+++ b/slirp/misc.c
@@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ int add_exec(struct ex_list **ex_ptr, int do_pty, char *exec,

        tmp_ptr = *ex_ptr;
        *ex_ptr = (struct ex_list *)malloc(sizeof(struct ex_list));
+    if (*ex_ptr == NULL) {
+        fprintf(stderr, "Error: malloc failed\n");
+        return -1;
+    }

Your indenting has gone a bit weird there.

Hmm, this file has some places that use tab key as indent.
Here i used spaces as indent, otherwise the patch can not pass the check of '/scripts/checkpatch.pl'.

What's your opinion? Use tab as what it does? Thanks!


        (*ex_ptr)->ex_fport = port;
        (*ex_ptr)->ex_addr = addr;
        (*ex_ptr)->ex_pty = do_pty;
@@ -236,8 +240,9 @@ strdup(str)
        char *bptr;

        bptr = (char *)malloc(strlen(str)+1);
-       strcpy(bptr, str);
-
+    if (bptr) {
+        strcpy(bptr, str);
+    }
        return bptr;
  }
  #endif

Again use of g_malloc would remove the need for this. HACKING section 3
says:


OK, Thanks!

3. Low level memory management

Use of the malloc/free/realloc/calloc/valloc/memalign/posix_memalign
APIs is not allowed in the QEMU codebase. Instead of these routines,
use the GLib memory allocation routines g_malloc/g_malloc0/g_new/
g_new0/g_realloc/g_free or QEMU's qemu_memalign/qemu_blockalign/qemu_vfree
APIs.

Please note that g_malloc will exit on allocation failure, so there
is no need to test for failure (as you would have to with malloc).
Calling g_malloc with a zero size is valid and will return NULL.







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]