On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 03:09:06PM -0800, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > There is potential for the info and info_free variable's purposes to > diverge. If info was overwritten with a distinct value, yet info_free > still needed deallocation a bug would occur on this line. Preemptively > address this issue (making use of divergent info/info_free values is > under consideration). > > Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell <ehem+...@m5p.com> > --- > tools/xl/xl_info.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/xl/xl_info.c b/tools/xl/xl_info.c > index 3647468420..938f06f1a8 100644 > --- a/tools/xl/xl_info.c > +++ b/tools/xl/xl_info.c > @@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ int main_list(int argc, char **argv) > info, nb_domain); > > if (info_free) > - libxl_dominfo_list_free(info, nb_domain); > + libxl_dominfo_list_free(info_free, nb_domain); > > libxl_dominfo_dispose(&info_buf); >
I don't think this is the right thing to do with this patch. libxl_dominfo_list_free() should use the same variable that is used by libxl_list_domain(). What we want to free is the allocation made by libxl_list_domain(). "info_free" in the function seems to be used as a boolean which tell if "info" have been allocated or not. Actually, it probably say if "info" is a list of "libxl_dominfo" or not. So instead of just replacing "info" by "info_free" here, we should instead store the result from libxl_list_domain() into a different variable and free that, like it is done with "info_buf". I hope that makes sense? Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD
