[vdr] 1.3.22: memory leaks

[Daniel THOMPSON]

Stefan Huelswitt wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2005 Daniel THOMPSON <daniel.thompson at st.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>There are routes through tComponent::FromString() that explicitly set 
>>description to NULL without checking its value first (when n != 4). This 
>>appears to me to be the leak.
>>
>>Running the following code it is obvious that glibc malloc'ed desc even
>>when desc is not converted.
> 
> 
> Wow, this is cool. How did you get the idea to search in that
> direction?

I got the idea from the reading your patch and the premise that it was 
unlikely that there was a bug in glibc.

Put simply I *never* blame core software like glibc or the compiler for 
bugs unless it is proved to me. These bits of software are so widely 
used that while blaming them is not *always* wrong it usually saves a 
lot of time to audit your own code first. Also I've met Ulrich Drepper 
and wouldn't want to let him catch me blaming glibc for something it 
didn't do.

> Anyways, I think the man page isn't very clear on this fact...

Agreed and I guess this is why the 'know your interfaces' maxim is so 
important.

>>While that are more robust ways to handle the case then desc is NULL 
>>(which for my glibc it never is) the above code is safe since both 
>>isempty() and glibc's free() can safely handle NULL pointers.
 >
> What about this?
> 
> if (description!=NULL && (n != 4 || isempty(description)))

Looks fine to me. For belt and braces we should probably also assert 
that description is NULL when we enter the call (or test it and free it).

-- 
Daniel Thompson (STMicroelectronics) <daniel.thompson at st.com>
1000 Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4SQ. 01454 462659

If a car is a horseless carriage then is a motorcycle a horseless horse?