New submission from Christian Heimes: Coverity claims that sock_accept() may leak a fd. I have been starring at the code for a while and I'm still not sure if Coverity is right. The macros make the code paths hard to follow. The attached patch is simple and should not be a performance issue.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/01597384531f/Modules/socketmodule.c#l1965 6. open_fn: Returning handle opened by function "accept(int, __SOCKADDR_ARG, socklen_t * restrict)". 7. var_assign: Assigning: "newfd" = handle returned from "accept(s->sock_fd, __SOCKADDR_ARG({ .__sockaddr__ = &addrbuf.sa}), &addrlen)". CID 983312 (#1 of 1): Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)14. overwrite_var: Overwriting handle "newfd" in "newfd = accept(s->sock_fd, __SOCKADDR_ARG({ .__sockaddr__ = &addrbuf.sa}), &addrlen)" leaks the handle. 1969 newfd = accept(s->sock_fd, SAS2SA(&addrbuf), &addrlen); ---------- components: Extension Modules files: closesock.patch keywords: needs review, patch messages: 193530 nosy: christian.heimes priority: normal severity: normal stage: patch review status: open title: Possible fd leak in socketmodule type: resource usage versions: Python 3.3, Python 3.4 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file31004/closesock.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18528> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
