> On Oct 14, 2019, at 7:47 AM, David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:49 PM Harris, James R
> <james.r.har...@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 10/14/19, 4:18 AM, "David Marchand" <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:19 PM Jim Harris <james.r.har...@intel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The code checks both rte_mp_request_sync() return
>>> code and that the number of messages in the reply
>>> equals 1. If rte_mp_request_sync() succeeds but
>>> there was more than one message, those messages
>>> would get leaked.
>>>
>>> Found via code review by Anatoly Burakov of patches
>>> that used the vhost code as a template for using
>>> rte_mp_request_sync().
>>
>> The patch looks fine, I just want to make sure its title reflect what it
>> fixes.
>> Can you give some insights of how common this issue is? If there are
>> known cases where it happens?
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I don't think this issue is common at all. I don't have any known cases in
>> mind - it was only found via code inspection.
>
> Anatoly, Jim,
>
> Not really inspired for the title, what do you think of:
> vfio: fix potential leak with multiprocess
>
> Plus, it deserves a Fixes: line.
> Fixes: 83a73c5fef66 ("vfio: use generic multi-process channel")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> If you are okay with this, I will do the change when applying.
I am ok with those changes. Thanks!
>
> --
> David Marchand
>
