From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29474 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2012 17:46:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 29451 invoked by uid 48); 27 Nov 2012 17:46:13 -0000 From: "tromey at redhat dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug gdb/14290] gdb_bfd_unref frees an already freed memory block Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:46:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-prs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q4/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14290 --- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey 2012-11-27 17:46:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > The patch works for me (I applied it on top of the latest trunk). > > One question: on line 94 of the patch, is it necessary to call gdb_bfd_ref on > `result`? In this case, bfd_mach_o_fat_extract was basically a noop, and > `abfd` was already reference counted by solib_bfd_open. Thanks for the note -- you are right, the current patch is funny here. My intent was for gdb_bfd_mach_o_fat_extract to always return a new reference so that the result could be handled uniformly in all cases. However I forgot a decref in darwin_bfd_open. I'll upload a new patch that fixes this. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.