[RFA] Fix leaks when pruning inferiors.

Message ID 20191201155220.15971-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [RFA] Fix leaks when pruning inferiors.
Related show

Commit Message

Philippe Waroquiers Dec. 1, 2019, 3:52 p.m.
Valgrind detects various inferior related leaks, such as:
  ==31877== 5,530 (56 direct, 5,474 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 7,131 of 7,355
  ==31877==    at 0x4C2E18C: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:760)
  ==31877==    by 0x23E580: xcalloc (alloc.c:100)
  ==31877==    by 0x4794A9: xcnewvec<void*> (poison.h:158)
  ==31877==    by 0x4794A9: registry_alloc_data(registry_data_registry*, registry_fields*) (registry.c:51)
  ==31877==    by 0x3A537C: inferior_alloc_data (inferior.c:43)
  ==31877==    by 0x3A537C: inferior::inferior(int) (inferior.c:92)
  ==31877==    by 0x3A5426: add_inferior_silent(int) (inferior.c:98)
  ==31877==    by 0x3A5530: add_inferior(int) (inferior.c:122)
  ...

Origin of the leaks is in prune_inferiors: prune_inferiors is first removing
the inferior to prune from the inferior list, then calls delete_inferior.
But delete_inferior will only really destroy the inferior when it finds
it into the inferior list.
As delete_inferior is removing the inferior to delete from the inferior list,
ensure prune_inferiors only calls delete_inferior, without touching the
inferior list.

gdb/ChangeLog
YYYY-MM-DD  Philippe Waroquiers  <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
	* inferior.c (prune_inferiors):  Only call delete_inferior,
	Do not modify the inferior list.
---
 gdb/inferior.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1

Comments

Pedro Alves Dec. 5, 2019, 4:42 p.m. | #1
On 12/1/19 3:52 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:

> Origin of the leaks is in prune_inferiors: prune_inferiors is first removing

> the inferior to prune from the inferior list, then calls delete_inferior.

> But delete_inferior will only really destroy the inferior when it finds

> it into the inferior list.

> As delete_inferior is removing the inferior to delete from the inferior list,

> ensure prune_inferiors only calls delete_inferior, without touching the

> inferior list.


Whoops.

> @@ -370,24 +370,22 @@ have_live_inferiors (void)

>  void

>  prune_inferiors (void)

>  {

> -  struct inferior *ss, **ss_link;

> +  struct inferior *ss, *ss_next;

>  


>  

> -      *ss_link = ss->next;

> +      ss_next = ss->next;

>        delete_inferior (ss);

> -      ss = *ss_link;

> +      ss = ss_next;


Please declare ss_next here instead of at the top.
You can omit the redundant "struct" while at it:

      inferior *next = ss->next;
      delete_inferior (ss);
      ss = next;

OK with that change.  Thanks!

Pedro Alves
Kevin Buettner Dec. 5, 2019, 4:44 p.m. | #2
On Sun,  1 Dec 2019 16:52:20 +0100
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> wrote:

> Valgrind detects various inferior related leaks, such as:

>   ==31877== 5,530 (56 direct, 5,474 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 7,131 of 7,355

>   ==31877==    at 0x4C2E18C: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:760)

>   ==31877==    by 0x23E580: xcalloc (alloc.c:100)

>   ==31877==    by 0x4794A9: xcnewvec<void*> (poison.h:158)

>   ==31877==    by 0x4794A9: registry_alloc_data(registry_data_registry*, registry_fields*) (registry.c:51)

>   ==31877==    by 0x3A537C: inferior_alloc_data (inferior.c:43)

>   ==31877==    by 0x3A537C: inferior::inferior(int) (inferior.c:92)

>   ==31877==    by 0x3A5426: add_inferior_silent(int) (inferior.c:98)

>   ==31877==    by 0x3A5530: add_inferior(int) (inferior.c:122)

>   ...

> 

> Origin of the leaks is in prune_inferiors: prune_inferiors is first removing

> the inferior to prune from the inferior list, then calls delete_inferior.

> But delete_inferior will only really destroy the inferior when it finds

> it into the inferior list.

> As delete_inferior is removing the inferior to delete from the inferior list,

> ensure prune_inferiors only calls delete_inferior, without touching the

> inferior list.

> 

> gdb/ChangeLog

> YYYY-MM-DD  Philippe Waroquiers  <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>

> 	* inferior.c (prune_inferiors):  Only call delete_inferior,

> 	Do not modify the inferior list.


Okay.

(Though I'd rather see a semicolon or a period in place of the comma in
the ChangeLog entry.)

Kevin
Philippe Waroquiers Dec. 5, 2019, 10:30 p.m. | #3
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 16:42 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Please declare ss_next here instead of at the top.

> You can omit the redundant "struct" while at it:

> 

>       inferior *next = ss->next;

>       delete_inferior (ss);

>       ss = next;

> 

> OK with that change.  Thanks!

Pushed after fixing the above,
and the ChangeLog message as suggested by Kevin.

Thanks for the review.

Philippe

Patch

diff --git a/gdb/inferior.c b/gdb/inferior.c
index 84e4d24e73..55c8409cd9 100644
--- a/gdb/inferior.c
+++ b/gdb/inferior.c
@@ -370,24 +370,22 @@  have_live_inferiors (void)
 void
 prune_inferiors (void)
 {
-  struct inferior *ss, **ss_link;
+  struct inferior *ss, *ss_next;
 
   ss = inferior_list;
-  ss_link = &inferior_list;
   while (ss)
     {
       if (!ss->deletable ()
 	  || !ss->removable
 	  || ss->pid != 0)
 	{
-	  ss_link = &ss->next;
-	  ss = *ss_link;
+	  ss = ss->next;
 	  continue;
 	}
 
-      *ss_link = ss->next;
+      ss_next = ss->next;
       delete_inferior (ss);
-      ss = *ss_link;
+      ss = ss_next;
     }
 }