Re: Replacing wmem_packet_scope() with pinfo->pool?

[Moshe Kaplan <mosheekaplan () gmail com>]

Coverity is complaining that some of the allocations made with pinfo ->
pool are leaking. Is it possible that the pinfo->pool based allocations are
not always cleaned up?

As an example, CoverityID 1487512 complains about packet-tcp.c's calls to
port_with_resolution_to_str leaking:
https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/blob/master/epan/dissectors/packet-tcp.c#L6500
.

Moshe



On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:31 AM Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:

> FYI this migration has now begun. Going forward, please use pinfo->pool
> instead of wmem_packet_scope() in new code when possible. And if anybody
> has some time, there are lots of existing dissectors left to convert. I
> expect most of them to be pretty straightforward, just adding pinfo to a
> few more method signatures as needed.
>
> Thanks,
> Evan
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:52 Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking recently about starting the process of getting rid
> > of the "global" wmem scope methods (wmem_packet_scope,
> > wmem_file_scope, etc) in favour of passing them around in arguments
> > (or in pinfo, or something). This would let us drop a bunch of
> > in-scope/out-of-scope tracking and assertion, as well as make the code
> > more amenable to future refactors like (potentially) concurrency.
> >
> > At a first glance, we already have pinfo->pool which maintains the
> > lifetime of the packet_info object. As far as I can reason, this is
> > almost/effectively the same as the existing wmem_packet_scope - it
> > gets cleaned up later in the dissection flow, but there's still only
> > ever one which gets reused for each packet.
> >
> > Is this correct? If so, does it make sense to start replacing
> > `wmem_packet_scope()` calls with `pinfo->pool` when pinfo is already
> > in scope?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Evan
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe