IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The SMB_MALLOC'ed rbt node data was not free'd on talloc free of
the db context. This is a quick fix using talloc instead of malloc
for allocation of the node data.
Since malloc was originally used for performance reasons, one
might want to reverse to malloc and create a talloc destructor
that walks the tree and frees all the node data if this talloc
approach proves to be too slow..
Michael
Only filled in for tdb so far, for rbt it's pointless, and ctdb itself needs to
be extended
(This used to be commit 0a55e018dd68af06d84332d54148bbfb0b510b22)
In this low-level code, play tricks to reduce the number of allocations to the
possible minimum. I would not recommend this for higher-level code, but here it
pays off.
(This used to be commit 71b1e6ff1595fbaa8dd49b996c45541531c7e98c)
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 06:04:32PM -0600, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Fix valgrind error in dbwrap_rbt where rec_priv->node was
> being accessed after free. VALOKER PLEASE CHECK THIS VERY
> CAREFULLY !!!! This is a correct fix in that it fixes the
> valgrind error, but it looks inelegant to me. I think if
> I understood this code better I could craft a more subtle
> fix. Still looking at it....
Thanks a lot. Fully correct. What about the attached little
simplification?
Volker
(This used to be commit 5b72828600fb057a7aeb5f1a6fb6c23c23f28cd8)
being accessed after free. VALOKER PLEASE CHECK THIS VERY
CAREFULLY !!!! This is a correct fix in that it fixes the
valgrind error, but it looks inelegant to me. I think if
I understood this code better I could craft a more subtle
fix. Still looking at it....
Jeremy.
(This used to be commit 12cce3be2a24fd72106d747890caf6c7f29db43d)
This is meant as a replacement for the internal tdb. To me it seems a bit silly
that for in-memory structures we do our own memory management. With this rbt
based approach we can make use of the system-supplied malloc.
(This used to be commit 54e5d4404619443caed32e2acff8921cdbff9ed1)
