Memory leaks

[GoogleCodeExporter]

libjingle version 0.6.3

1. winping.cc line 183: 
   change delete reply_; 
   to     delete[] reply_;

2.pseudotcpchannel.cc line 304:
  stream_ = NULL;
  should delete stream_ before assign to NULL?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by wangqin...@gmail.com on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:42

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Another issue about memory leaks:
In CallClient::InitPresence many task objects are instantiated (e.g. 
PresenceOutTask and PresencePushTask). It seems that these objects are never 
deleted. Isn't this memory leak too?

Original comment by diego.cd...@gmail.com on 28 Nov 2011 at 3:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Another issue about memory leaks:
In CallClient::SendChat the stanza (objects from XmlElement class) creted is 
deleted:

void CallClient::SendChat(const std::string& to, const std::string msg) {
  buzz::XmlElement* stanza = new buzz::XmlElement(buzz::QN_MESSAGE);
  stanza->AddAttr(buzz::QN_TO, to);
  stanza->AddAttr(buzz::QN_ID, talk_base::CreateRandomString(16));
  stanza->AddAttr(buzz::QN_TYPE, "chat");
  buzz::XmlElement* body = new buzz::XmlElement(buzz::QN_BODY);
  body->SetBodyText(msg);
  stanza->AddElement(body);

  xmpp_client_->SendStanza(stanza);
  delete stanza;
}

But there are a lot of stanzas (objects from XmlElement class) that are created 
and are not deleted. e.g. PresenceOutTask::SendDirected (Send and SendProbe are 
other examples in this class but this situation occurs all over the code):

XmppReturnStatus
PresenceOutTask::SendDirected(const Jid & j, const Status & s) {
  if (GetState() != STATE_INIT && GetState() != STATE_START)
    return XMPP_RETURN_BADSTATE;

  XmlElement * presence = TranslateStatus(s);
  presence->AddAttr(QN_TO, j.Str());
  QueueStanza(presence);
  return XMPP_RETURN_OK;
}

Isn't this memory leak too?

Original comment by diego.cd...@gmail.com on 28 Nov 2011 at 3:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not all reported spots have leak. I've fixed all real leaks. It'll be in the 
next libjingle release. Thanks your reporting those issues.

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 1 Dec 2011 at 5:17

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Other related leaks of comment #3: MucInviteSendTask::Send and 
FriendInviteSendTask::Send. I don't know if the same issue happens in libjingle 
core. And only now I noticed a lack of pattern in those task classes: Some of 
them have/had this issue while DiscoItemsQueryTask and PresenceOutTask (of 
login example. This is a old class that no longer exists: 
http://www.google.com/codesearch#9XskYags0aI/trunk/talk/examples/login/presenceo
uttask.h&q=presenceouttask%20package:http://libjingle\.googlecode\.com) have 
smart pointers for stanzas:

int DiscoItemsQueryTask::ProcessStart() {
  talk_base::scoped_ptr<XmlElement> get(MakeIq(STR_GET, to_, task_id()));

and

private:
  XmlElement * TranslateStatus(const Status & s);
  scoped_ptr<XmlElement> stanza_;
};
The last code is in PresenceOutTask of login example. Why this difference?

I also would like to know why comment #2 was not considered a leak. Shouldn't 
the task classes be deleted? Thanks.

Original comment by diego.cd...@gmail.com on 11 Dec 2011 at 12:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I didn't realized that you added more issues after I changed the status to 
"accepted". My fix was about everything prior to that point.
In the future, please file new issues if I changed the status of current issue 
to "accepted", which is the point where I started working on it.
Thanks for understanding.

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 11 Dec 2011 at 4:00

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ok Jun, understood, next time I will do it. But someone fixed the issues I 
pointed on comment #3 (after you changed to accept). So in comment #7 I wrote 
two more points in the code (like I said, I pointed on call example. I don't 
know if this problem happens on libjingle core) with the same problem and also 
pointed some differences in how stanzas are handled in the code. Finally, 
please let me know if comment #2 is a leak or not. Thanks.

Original comment by diego.cd...@gmail.com on 11 Dec 2011 at 5:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 284 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 26 Mar 2012 at 6:38

• Changed state: New

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jun...@google.com on 26 Mar 2012 at 6:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please file new bug in WebRTC issue tracker if you still see leaks.

Original comment by juberti@google.com on 1 Jun 2013 at 4:43

• Changed state: Fixed