我發表這篇文章代表我的大學。
他發現了一個可疑的內存泄漏使用handle_option時(MySQL的getopt的LIB)來讀取配置文件(/etc/my.cnf中)
他的malloc HOST_NAME後,再執行下面的源代碼,用戶名:
char* host_name;
char* user_name;
struct my_option mysql_confgs[] =
{
{"host", "h", "MySQL Server", (uchar**) & host_name, NULL, NULL, GET_STR,
REQUIRED_ARG, 0,0,0,0,0,0},
{"user", "u", "userID", "h",(uchar**) & user_name, NULL, NULL, GET_STR,
REQUIRED_ARG, 0,0,0,0,0,0}
}
handle_options(&argc, &argv, mysql_configs, aux_config_reader);
他提到上面的方法是使用錯誤(段),而不是使用免費(主機名)和免費(用戶名)?所以這是造成內存泄漏的可能原因?
嗯..我在MySQL上沒有基本的東西,所以我可能無法交付100%的問題描述。因此,請隨時查詢,我將根據查詢更新問題描述的詳細信息。
我的大學有語言障礙,所以我代表他發佈信息。
Valgrind的報告:
480 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 26 of 43
at 0x4A068FE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
by 0x33E4E293C1: my_malloc (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2C974: alloc_root (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2E620: ??? (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2F838: my_load_defaults (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x408BF1: MS_MYSQL_init (MS_MYSQL_O.h:109)
by 0x438A39: main_proc (AccLab.c:221)
by 0x437F8A: main (AccLab.c:67)
75,840 bytes in 158 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 41 of 43
at 0x4A068FE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
by 0x33E4E293C1: my_malloc (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2C974: alloc_root (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2E620: ??? (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x33E4E2F838: my_load_defaults (in /usr/lib64/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0)
by 0x408BF1: MS_MYSQL_init (MS_MYSQL_O.h:109)
by 0x438A39: main_proc (AccLab.c:221)
by 0x437F8A: main (AccLab.c:67)
泄漏摘要:
definitely lost: 75,840 bytes in 158 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
possibly lost: 2,304 bytes in 7 blocks
still reachable: 9,675,408 bytes in 2,387 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes
For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 8 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)
將host_name和user_name更改爲'uchar *'可能是一個好主意,以避免從'char **'到'uchar **'的轉換不是很好定義。 – Sebivor 2013-03-22 01:38:46
您是否考慮過使用valgrind來確定哪塊內存在泄漏? – Sebivor 2013-03-22 01:47:19
Ivalue,我剛剛更新了帖子。我們運行Valgrind並檢查內存泄漏。事實上,這是我們第一次使用Valgrind,所以如何從上面解釋Valgrind報告? – jhyap 2013-03-22 06:05:37