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
