Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:32 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>;
> Yuying Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@xilinx.com>;
> Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella
> <m...@ashroe.eu>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethdev: add indirect action async query
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:18 AM Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:07 PM
> > > To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Aman Singh
> > > <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>;
> > > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> > > (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit
> > > <ferruh.yi...@xilinx.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>;
> > > dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethdev: add indirect action async query
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 9:12 AM Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > @@ -2873,17 +2907,23 @@ port_queue_action_handle_destroy(portid_t
> > > port_id,
> > > > * of error.
> > > > */
> > > > memset(&error, 0x99, sizeof(error));
> > > > + job = calloc(1, sizeof(*job));
> > > > + if (!job) {
> > > > + printf("Queue action destroy job
> > > > allocate failed\n");
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + }
> > > > + job->type = QUEUE_JOB_TYPE_ACTION_DESTROY;
> > > > + job->pia = pia;
> > > >
> > > > if (pia->handle &&
> > > >
> > > > rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy(port_id,
> > > > - queue_id, &attr, pia->handle, NULL,
> > > > &error)) {
> > > > + queue_id, &attr, pia->handle, job,
> > > > + &error)) {
> > > > ret = port_flow_complain(&error);
> > > > continue;
> > > > }
> > > > *tmp = pia->next;
> > > > printf("Indirect action #%u destruction
> > > > queued\n",
> > > > pia->id);
> > > > - free(pia);
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > > if (i == n)
> > >
> > > Our covscan tool reports a potential leak of "job" in this block.
> > > I am unclear whether it is a normal occurence, but it seems that if
> > > pia->handle == NULL, then job is leaked.
> >
> > OK, this function can only be called from destroying a created action
> > handle.
> For the created action handle, the pia->handle should never be NULL here.
> > And we also have " if (actions[i] != pia->id) " several lines above to
> > ensure it is
> a valid pia.
> > I agree from tools' point of view it looks like a leak here. But it should
> > never
> happen.
> > Do you think we need a "fix" in that case?
>
> - If you are sure of it, unnecessary checks must be removed.
Sure, I will create a patch to remove that redundant check.
>
> - In pia->handle != NULL branch, won't "job" be leaked too if
> rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy() fails?
Yes, you are right.
Thanks, I will create a patch with the two changes.
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
