lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #27078, Possible memory leak in pppInit()
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #27078: Possible memory leak in pppInit()
Submitter: | Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 22 Jul 2009 03:42:57 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Change Request | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | CVS Head |
Sun 23 Aug 2009 05:40:55 PM UTC, comment #2: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 20 Aug 2009 02:13:09 PM UTC, comment #1: As with the other PPP bugs, can anyone verify this fix? |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 22 Jul 2009 03:42:57 PM UTC, original submission:
In ppp.c:
|
Iordan Neshev <iordan_neshev> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009-08-23 | goldsimon | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
I think this one is a matter of looking at the code, not verifying it by runing PPP. This is definitively a memory leak and I agree to the fix. And I've checked in.
I doubt that will break someone's code: if someone accessed an lwIP-internal variable (outpacket_buf), and freed it, there should already be a check for != NULL, since you cannot know up to which point it worked.