Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix read after xfree in linux_nat_detach
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:17:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170322181652.6d145e7f@ThinkPad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1ba8e9a2-2155-cab4-a530-ef7344a40c33@redhat.com>

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:07:22 +0000
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 01:11 PM, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> > At the end of linux_nat_detach there is a check whether the
> > inferior has a fork.  If no fork exists the main_lwp is detached
> > (detach_one_lwp) and later, outside the check, deleted
> > (delete_lwp).  This is problematic as detach_one_lwp also calls
> > delete_lwp freeing main_lwp.  Thus the second call to delete_lwp
> > reads from already freed memory.  Fix this by removing delete_lwp
> > at the end of detach_one_lwp.  
> 
> Why not just move that unconditional call to delete_lwp call at
> the end of linux_nat_detach to the forks_exist_p/true branch?

That was the first idea I had.  But I decided that it would be better
for both detach functions (linux_fork_detach and detach_one_lwp) to have
the same behavior and not free the lwp but do that in a separate
step ...

> Actually, that call looks unnecessary for the fork case too,
> since we have:
> 
>   linux_fork_detach
>     -> fork_load_infrun_state
>       -> linux_nat_switch_fork
>          -> purge_lwp_list
>             -> lwp_lwpid_htab_remove_pid
>                -> lwp_free  

...  I obviously missed that.

> 
> So... couldn't we just remove that delete_lwp line and be done with
> it?

Looks like we can get simply rid of it.  I'll see that I get a test
case running which forks to verify it, tomorrow.

Thanks
Philipp

> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-22 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-22 13:11 [PATCH] Fix memory leak in python.c:do_start_initialization Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 13:11 ` [PATCH] Fix read after xfree in linux_nat_detach Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 15:07   ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-22 17:17     ` Philipp Rudo [this message]
2017-03-22 17:26       ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-23 13:17         ` [PATCH v2] " Philipp Rudo
2017-03-23 13:42           ` Pedro Alves
     [not found]             ` <f712cd1a-cf44-44da-9bf4-3ccd407a76a0@redhat.com>
2017-04-12  8:14               ` Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 15:19 ` [PATCH] Fix memory leak in python.c:do_start_initialization Pedro Alves
2017-03-22 17:52   ` Philipp Rudo
2017-03-22 18:45     ` Pedro Alves

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170322181652.6d145e7f@ThinkPad \
    --to=prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=palves@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox