fsdev: Fix potential memory leak

This leak was reported by cppcheck.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
---
 fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Am 16.06.2013 12:02, schrieb Stefan Weil:
> This leak was reported by cppcheck.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>  fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> index 6eaf36d..ccfec13 100644
> --- a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> +++ b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ int qemu_fsdev_add(QemuOpts *opts)
>  
>      if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts) {
>          if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts(opts, &fsle->fse)) {
> +            g_free(fsle->fse.fsdev_id);
> +            g_free(fsle);
>              return -1;
>          }
>      }

Ping?

Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> writes:

> This leak was reported by cppcheck.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>

Reviewed-by: M. Mohan Kumar <mohan@in.ibm.com>
> ---
>  fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> index 6eaf36d..ccfec13 100644
> --- a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> +++ b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ int qemu_fsdev_add(QemuOpts *opts)
>
>      if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts) {
>          if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts(opts, &fsle->fse)) {
> +            g_free(fsle->fse.fsdev_id);
> +            g_free(fsle);
>              return -1;
>          }
>      }
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4

Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> writes:

> Am 16.06.2013 12:02, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>> This leak was reported by cppcheck.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
>> ---
>>  fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c |    2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>> index 6eaf36d..ccfec13 100644
>> --- a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>> +++ b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>> @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ int qemu_fsdev_add(QemuOpts *opts)
>>  
>>      if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts) {
>>          if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts(opts, &fsle->fse)) {
>> +            g_free(fsle->fse.fsdev_id);
>> +            g_free(fsle);
>>              return -1;
>>          }
>>      }
>
> Ping?

Both the error path result in Qemu terminating right ? Do we really care
about free in those case ?

-aneesh

Am 07.07.2013 19:15, schrieb Aneesh Kumar K.V:
> Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> writes:
>
>> Am 16.06.2013 12:02, schrieb Stefan Weil:
>>> This leak was reported by cppcheck.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
>>> ---
>>>  fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c |    2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>>> index 6eaf36d..ccfec13 100644
>>> --- a/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>>> +++ b/fsdev/qemu-fsdev.c
>>> @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ int qemu_fsdev_add(QemuOpts *opts)
>>>  
>>>      if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts) {
>>>          if (fsle->fse.ops->parse_opts(opts, &fsle->fse)) {
>>> +            g_free(fsle->fse.fsdev_id);
>>> +            g_free(fsle);
>>>              return -1;
>>>          }
>>>      }
>> Ping?
> Both the error path result in Qemu terminating right ? Do we really care
> about free in those case ?
>
> -aneesh


Yes, we do, because it simplifies code reviews if there are
as few as possible warnings from static code analysers.

It is also not immediately obvious that QEMU terminates
in the code which was patched here. Reviewers have
to grep and look in vl.c, too, to see this.

Therefore I'd appreciate if this and similar code could be
fixed (with low priority here).

Regards
Stefan W.

Applied.  Thanks.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori