On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:02:03AM +0530, Md Haris Iqbal wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Md Haris Iqbal <haris.p...@gmail.com> >> --- >> linux-user/qemu.h | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/linux-user/qemu.h b/linux-user/qemu.h >> index 26b0ba2..3c3fd15 100644 >> --- a/linux-user/qemu.h >> +++ b/linux-user/qemu.h >> @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ static inline void *lock_user(int type, abi_ulong >> guest_addr, long len, int copy >> #ifdef DEBUG_REMAP >> { >> void *addr; >> - addr = malloc(len); >> + addr = g_malloc(len); >> if (copy) >> memcpy(addr, g2h(guest_addr), len); >> else >> @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ static inline void unlock_user(void *host_ptr, abi_ulong >> guest_addr, >> return; >> if (len > 0) >> memcpy(g2h(guest_addr), host_ptr, len); >> - free(host_ptr); >> + g_free(host_ptr); >> #endif >> } > > If I understand correctly either lock_user() or lock_user_string() may > be followed by unlock_user(). If you change unlock_user() to g_free() > then you also need to change lock_user_string() to g_malloc() to avoid a > malloc()/g_free() mismatch.
lock_user_string() does not use malloc itself, but calls lock_user() from itself. -- With regards, Md Haris Iqbal, Placement Coordinator, MTech IT NITK Surathkal, Contact: +91 8861996962