Thx, applied to master,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:13:34AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > On current master, when 'upcall_receive()' returns error, the
> > ofpbuf 'upcall->put_actions' is uninitialized. In some usecase,
> > the failure of 'upcall
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:13:34AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> On current master, when 'upcall_receive()' returns error, the
> ofpbuf 'upcall->put_actions' is uninitialized. In some usecase,
> the failure of 'upcall_receive()' will cause uninitialize of
> 'upcall->put_actions' and free of uninitiali
On current master, when 'upcall_receive()' returns error, the
ofpbuf 'upcall->put_actions' is uninitialized. In some usecase,
the failure of 'upcall_receive()' will cause uninitialize of
'upcall->put_actions' and free of uninitialized pointer.
This commit fixes the issue by making the caller not
Thx Ben,
> It's a little unusual for an initialization function that fails to
> still leave the object that it initializes ready to be destroyed. If
> upcall_receive() fails, is there other data in 'upcall' that needs to
> be destroyed?
No, I don't think there is other data to be destroyed..
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:53:14AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> On current master, when 'upcall_receive()' returns error, the
> ofpbuf 'upcall->put_actions' is uninitialized. In most cases,
> the failure of 'upcall_receive()' will cause uninitialize of
> 'upcall->put_actions' and free of uninitialize
On current master, when 'upcall_receive()' returns error, the
ofpbuf 'upcall->put_actions' is uninitialized. In most cases,
the failure of 'upcall_receive()' will cause uninitialize of
'upcall->put_actions' and free of uninitialized pointer.
This commit fixes the issue by making 'upcall_receive()
