From c6957bddb939a1a602824b9fa731fc45fb4a6d8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Simmons-Talbott Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 10:38:42 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] hurd: writev: Add back cleanup handler There is a potential memory leak for large writes due to writev being a "shall occur" cancellation point. Add back the cleanup handler removed in cf30aa43a5917f441c9438aaee201c53c8e1d76b. Checked on i686-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu. Message-Id: <20230619143842.2901522-1-josimmon@redhat.com> --- sysdeps/posix/writev.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/sysdeps/posix/writev.c b/sysdeps/posix/writev.c index d4c3cf6f032..0c86e7ea5e2 100644 --- a/sysdeps/posix/writev.c +++ b/sysdeps/posix/writev.c @@ -26,6 +26,12 @@ #include +static void +ifree (struct scratch_buffer *sbuf) +{ + scratch_buffer_free (sbuf); +} + /* Write data pointed by the buffers described by VECTOR, which is a vector of COUNT 'struct iovec's, to file descriptor FD. The data is written in the order specified. @@ -51,7 +57,7 @@ __writev (int fd, const struct iovec *vector, int count) since it's faster for small buffer sizes but can handle larger allocations as well. */ - struct scratch_buffer buf; + struct scratch_buffer __attribute__ ((__cleanup__ (ifree))) buf; scratch_buffer_init (&buf); if (!scratch_buffer_set_array_size (&buf, 1, bytes)) /* XXX I don't know whether it is acceptable to try writing @@ -75,8 +81,6 @@ __writev (int fd, const struct iovec *vector, int count) ssize_t bytes_written = __write (fd, buffer, bytes); - scratch_buffer_free (&buf); - return bytes_written; } libc_hidden_def (__writev) -- 2.47.2