Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf probe: Fix libdw memory leak

[Namhyung Kim]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:17:08AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/09/2024 1:37 am, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > Add missing dwarf_cfi_end to free memory associated with probe_finder
> > cfi_eh or cfi_dbg. This addresses leak sanitizer issues seen in:
> > tools/perf/tests/shell/test_uprobe_from_different_cu.sh
> > 
> > Fixes: 270bde1e76f4 ("perf probe: Search both .eh_frame and .debug_frame sections for probe location")
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c | 5 +++++
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c b/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > index 630e16c54ed5..78f34fa0c391 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c
> > @@ -1379,6 +1379,11 @@ int debuginfo__find_trace_events(struct debuginfo *dbg,
> >   	if (ret >= 0 && tf.pf.skip_empty_arg)
> >   		ret = fill_empty_trace_arg(pev, tf.tevs, tf.ntevs);
> > +#if _ELFUTILS_PREREQ(0, 142)
> > +	dwarf_cfi_end(tf.pf.cfi_eh);
> > +	dwarf_cfi_end(tf.pf.cfi_dbg);
> > +#endif
> > +
> 
> I noticed that c06547d converted an _ELFUTILS_PREREQ(0, 142) into
> HAVE_DWARF_CFI_SUPPORT. But there is still a mixture of both in the code
> (unrelated to this patch). The commit message doesn't say why it is better,
> just that it could be changed, so I'm not sure which one is right.

I think HAVE_DWARF_CFI_SUPPORT is better since it reveals the intention
clearly.

Thanks,
Namhyung