ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 19:38 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
While the behaviour with the NULL argument is not explicitly spelled out, I don't see the RFC saying that the behaviour is undefined either.
Is there really any platform where a free* function would not be a noop?
On (18/05/14 04:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 19:38 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
While the behaviour with the NULL argument is not explicitly spelled out, I don't see the RFC saying that the behaviour is undefined either.
Is there really any platform where a free* function would not be a noop?
POSIX functions don't require you to zero the pointers used for output unless specified otherwise.
From [1]:
Upon successful return of getaddrinfo(), the location to which res points shall refer to a linked list of addrinfo structures, each of which shall specify a socket address and information for use in creating a socket with which to use that socket address.
It's pretty clear that the standard is written with an assumption that in other cases, the res variable is not being touched. In other way. it does not make a sense to call freeaddrinfo, if getaddrinfo fails.
The one of possible implementation where calling freeaddrinfo(NULL) will crash. http://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/lib/libc/net/freeaddrinfo.c
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/freeaddrinfo.html
LS
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 07:52:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (18/05/14 04:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 19:38 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
While the behaviour with the NULL argument is not explicitly spelled out, I don't see the RFC saying that the behaviour is undefined either.
Is there really any platform where a free* function would not be a noop?
POSIX functions don't require you to zero the pointers used for output unless specified otherwise.
From [1]:
Upon successful return of getaddrinfo(), the location to which res points shall refer to a linked list of addrinfo structures, each of which shall specify a socket address and information for use in creating a socket with which to use that socket address.It's pretty clear that the standard is written with an assumption that in other cases, the res variable is not being touched. In other way. it does not make a sense to call freeaddrinfo, if getaddrinfo fails.
The one of possible implementation where calling freeaddrinfo(NULL) will crash. http://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/lib/libc/net/freeaddrinfo.c
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/freeaddrinfo.html
LS
OK, thanks. Then I think your patch makes sense.
ACK
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:11:36AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 07:52:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (18/05/14 04:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 19:38 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
While the behaviour with the NULL argument is not explicitly spelled out, I don't see the RFC saying that the behaviour is undefined either.
Is there really any platform where a free* function would not be a noop?
POSIX functions don't require you to zero the pointers used for output unless specified otherwise.
From [1]:
Upon successful return of getaddrinfo(), the location to which res points shall refer to a linked list of addrinfo structures, each of which shall specify a socket address and information for use in creating a socket with which to use that socket address.It's pretty clear that the standard is written with an assumption that in other cases, the res variable is not being touched. In other way. it does not make a sense to call freeaddrinfo, if getaddrinfo fails.
The one of possible implementation where calling freeaddrinfo(NULL) will crash. http://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/lib/libc/net/freeaddrinfo.c
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/freeaddrinfo.html
LS
OK, thanks. Then I think your patch makes sense.
ACK
Pushed to master: 7aaf9138ccf7ab73883f28cfafd6e508d29ffa67
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:11:36AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 07:52:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (18/05/14 04:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 19:38 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
We should call freeaddrinfo only in situation if getaddrinfo succeeds. It is not specified in RFC2553 the behaviour of calling freeaddrinfo with the NULL argument. It is more portable to do not rely on undocumented behaviour of glibc.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt [Page 28]
simple patch is attached.
LS
While the behaviour with the NULL argument is not explicitly spelled out, I don't see the RFC saying that the behaviour is undefined either.
Is there really any platform where a free* function would not be a noop?
POSIX functions don't require you to zero the pointers used for output unless specified otherwise.
From [1]:
Upon successful return of getaddrinfo(), the location to which res points shall refer to a linked list of addrinfo structures, each of which shall specify a socket address and information for use in creating a socket with which to use that socket address.It's pretty clear that the standard is written with an assumption that in other cases, the res variable is not being touched. In other way. it does not make a sense to call freeaddrinfo, if getaddrinfo fails.
The one of possible implementation where calling freeaddrinfo(NULL) will crash. http://ftp.fr.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/src/lib/libc/net/freeaddrinfo.c
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/freeaddrinfo.html
LS
OK, thanks. Then I think your patch makes sense.
ACK
Pushed to sssd-1-11: 6f895da367934fe44e101d8bc3d7dcee11034f3b
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Jakub Hrozek -
Jakub Hrozek -
Lukas Slebodnik