Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 06/10] slirp/misc: check return value of malloc()

[zhanghailiang]

On 2014/8/8 21:24, Alex Bennée wrote:
> zhanghailiang writes:
>
> > On 2014/8/8 17:43, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > zhanghailiang writes:
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang<address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > >    slirp/misc.c | 9 +++++++--
> > > >    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> <snip>
> > > Your indenting has gone a bit weird there.
> >
> > Hmm, this file has some places that use tab key as indent.
> > Here i used spaces as indent, otherwise the patch can not pass the check
> > of '/scripts/checkpatch.pl'.
> >
> > What's your opinion? Use tab as what it does? Thanks!
>
> Welcome to the world of QEMU's inconsistent whitespace ;-)
>
> You have two choices:
>
>    * two patches: 1st to clean up whitespace for that function, 2nd to
>      fix
>    * keep to using tabs for that particular fix
>
> Eventually the code base will get to a consistent state we hope...

OK, I will choose the second way! Thanks, Alex.

> > > >         (*ex_ptr)->ex_fport = port;
> > > >         (*ex_ptr)->ex_addr = addr;
> > > >         (*ex_ptr)->ex_pty = do_pty;
> > > > @@ -236,8 +240,9 @@ strdup(str)
> > > >         char *bptr;
> > > >
> > > >         bptr = (char *)malloc(strlen(str)+1);
> > > > -       strcpy(bptr, str);
> > > > -
> > > > +    if (bptr) {
> > > > +        strcpy(bptr, str);
> > > > +    }
> > > >         return bptr;
> > > >    }
> > > >    #endif
> > >
> > > Again use of g_malloc would remove the need for this. HACKING section 3
> > > says:
> >
> > OK, Thanks!
> >
> > > 3. Low level memory management
> > >
> > > Use of the malloc/free/realloc/calloc/valloc/memalign/posix_memalign
> > > APIs is not allowed in the QEMU codebase. Instead of these routines,
> > > use the GLib memory allocation routines g_malloc/g_malloc0/g_new/
> > > g_new0/g_realloc/g_free or QEMU's qemu_memalign/qemu_blockalign/qemu_vfree
> > > APIs.
> > >
> > > Please note that g_malloc will exit on allocation failure, so there
> > > is no need to test for failure (as you would have to with malloc).
> > > Calling g_malloc with a zero size is valid and will return NULL.