Icecast dev - Dec 2009 - Memory leak on Icecast 2.3.2 / Debian ?

On 08/12/09 20:44, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
> I'm not a icecast developer so I have very little idea what the code in
> question does or how to test it. As a matter of fact I don't even have
a
> build environment (or time) available here, this is why I didn't send a
> patch.
>
> But since you asked, attached are the missing frees for icecast2_2.3.2-4
> in a totally untested drive-by-patching manner. Like I said the -kh17 I
> also happened to have did not have this specific code at all and the
> xmlEncodeEntitiesReentrant() calls were all fine.
The patch is fine, both kh and the trunk code use different code so 
those should not have this problem but feel free to report any issues 
like this.

karl.

Hi !

Le mardi 8 d?cembre 2009 19:59:23, Karl Heyes a ?crit :
> > But since you asked, attached are the missing frees for
icecast2_2.3.2-4
> > in a totally untested drive-by-patching manner. Like I said the -kh17
I
> > also happened to have did not have this specific code at all and the
> > xmlEncodeEntitiesReentrant() calls were all fine.
> 
> The patch is fine, both kh and the trunk code use different code so 
> those should not have this problem but feel free to report any issues 
> like this.
Ok, thanks !

Giles, could you confirm that this patch fixes your memory leak ?


Romain

On 09/12/2009 16:59, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> 	Hi !
> 
> Le mardi 8 d?cembre 2009 19:59:23, Karl Heyes a ?crit :
>>> But since you asked, attached are the missing frees for
icecast2_2.3.2-4
>>> in a totally untested drive-by-patching manner. Like I said the
-kh17 I
>>> also happened to have did not have this specific code at all and
the
>>> xmlEncodeEntitiesReentrant() calls were all fine.
>> The patch is fine, both kh and the trunk code use different code so 
>> those should not have this problem but feel free to report any issues 
>> like this.
> 
> Ok, thanks !
> 
> Giles, could you confirm that this patch fixes your memory leak ?
> 
> 
> Romain

Hi,

it has been running for 3 days, and hit hard for stress test, it seems 
fine now with this patch. I guess it would be good for debian to 
backport that indeed (and I'm surprised nobody was impacted by this in a 
noticeable enough way so as to report it).

As I'm now facing a required recompile/upgrade anyway, I'm wondering 
whether I should just patch this, or go for the trunk code.. How 
reliable is it?

Cheers, and thanks a lot to you guys
Gilou