Memory Leak

I wonder if you have hit the nail on the head right there Frederic. I am using Windows XP Pro w/SP2.

Regards,

Jag

 

WinXP Pro w/SP2 fully updated for me as well...

 

Hexaguano,

Are you starting LnS with or without the service?

 

Same here.

 

I’ve also ran my own tests and it shown that Look ‘n’ Stop Application filtering the usual every day blockings for either of the application rights don’t have any sort of noticeable leak, it does remain that there is definitely a problem under an unusual condition and app being blocked from one of the rights. If and when I do have little time to spend, I’ll reproduce my earlier computer grounds and get to the bottom of it.

 

@Jaguar

I am starting LnS without the service and I'm using the enhanced ruleset (with a handfull of extra rules added).

 

Frederic

Any news or more information required from me (us) on this subject ?

 

I suggest the following links / guides / tools to debug memory leaks (kernel and user mode) :

http://labmice.techtarget.com/troubleshooting/memoryleaks.htm

 

Yes I am awaiting word from Frederic myself.

Cheers,

Jag

 

Hi,

My problem is mainly to reproduce the memory leak.
I've played with the dh Microsoft utility but I've found nothing wrong.
PerfMon shows nothing interesting to me.
Now I'm trying to setup umdh to do the same.

At this time what I see is the memory usage increasing as soon as I open/close and it retstarts, but no real evidence (on my system) of a memory leak.

I know the memory is increasing each time a connected application is added to the list, because of the icon. But after opening/closing Look 'n' Stop, memory go back to a normal value.
You can try that with the following utility:
http://looknstop.soft4ever.com/Tools/OpenAddr.exe
which just opens/closes an UDP Socket without sending nothing on it.
Command line is: openaddr <timer> <occurences>

If the application is allowed, you will see the memory growing, but normally it should come back to a normal value later (when opening/closing Look 'n' Stop at least).

Frederic

 

Hi,all
Anyway, all i wanna know is how to solve this problem or just let it be?
What can I use to solve the problem?

 

A memory leak to me is when an application does not release memory when closing. This is not the case here. Memory does increase with usage (LNS works all the time, especially with dns resolution) but simply minimizing returns value to 700k.
Others may not agree with me, but my personal opinion is to let it be.

 

Why is it that other firewalls I have tested do not exhibit this behavior then? To me it's a leak of some sort that needs to be addressed.

 

Just because the memory an application uses is not visible in the Task Manager listing, does NOT mean that the application in question does not use more memory.

You need a proper software to look at all the VM and commit charges an app makes.

All firewalls have to resort to using bigger RAM chunks when they deal with larger routing tables, more rules, huge amounts of connections, etc.

And yes, memory leak is a condition where an application reserves some memory for it's own use, but does not properly release it. If the app in question keeps asking for more memory to lock, this will in the long run lead to memory starvation on the system.

LnS does not have a memory leak that I've noticed.

However, if you've convinced there is one and can debug it using the tools linked above, I'm sure the developers would be willing to hear from you again.

 

It is not my job to debug the memory leak in this application. Since you seem to have lots of free time, have at it.

 

It's not your job to debug it, but if you CLAIM that it has a leak to begin with, you are advised to:

A) Know what a leak is

B) provide some sort of proof that there is a leak (standard rule: burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim)

Otherwise you might not be taken seriously.

Frederic, I suggest you look into the RAM usage as I know how these things can develop into a snow ball effect and finally into an avalance.

Pretty soon there'll be a Slashdot newspost about how LnS has a memory leak and it is eating all the RAM chips in the world


regards,
Halcyon

PS I'm not saying there couldn't be a leak, but I'm yet to observe it myself (under a huge load of over a thousand of concurrent tcp/ip connections + a big number of rules) or understand how the evidence given amounts to a leak.

 

I am not trying to bash the progam at all, so I think you are a bit over the top with your reference to something showing up on Slashdot. It is not my point to do something like that, but to rather bring it to devleopment's attention.

It's quite obvious that you are a fanboy of LnS, which is totally fine. We all have our programs that we like and use and feel the need to stick up for.

I started this thread after noticing this problem and guess what, I am not alone.

I know what a memory leak is and I stated *my* findings on *my* machine. Your machine or someone's else mileage may vary.

I asked Frederic if he needed further testing done, but I have not heard back from him as I assume he is busy.

Again, just because *you* do not have this problem with your *many* connections is great. I at least finally brought this issue up as others have been wondering about this problem and tried to figure it out, but did not start up a topic.

I feel that LnS is a good firewall. It's strong, light, and does it's job. I do not feel that I have to post data for you to *prove* my point. I know what a memory leak is and this sure has the look and feel of one (at least on my pc).

So with that said, that is about it for me. I have moved on to another firewall sadly because of this issue. If it is addressed in the future I may look to come back to LnS, but until that time comes, I am happy with my current setup and am therefore done with this thread.

I will say this. Frederic if you would like additional testing done I can help you out provided I have the time.

Best Regards,

Jag

 

Everyone should know how this goes, it is nearly impossible to build software (like software firewalls) to entirely function perfectly under use on many different systems and with many different setups.

It has been clearly stated this is indeed a memory leak, and those who tries to say differently, obviously didn’t entirely read everything said on this topic.

This memory leak happens (to me) when Application filtering is activated, and only then does this anomaly happen. And as clearly stated, there doesn’t need to be any activity what-so-ever in the Log screen, actually you can disable Internet Filtering altogether and this anomaly still occur. I don’t even need to have many things in the background running, or many or ANY connections for this anomaly to occur.

This memory leak only happens when there is a block on particular application from (Launching or Connecting rights, I don’t remember which it is). How many seen Look ‘n’ Stop use 15MB of memory? Well I seen Look ‘n’ Stop use 130+MB, and opening and minimizing its GUI doesn’t do a memory release.

Alright, so you guys can keep on debating it being memory leak, just let us know when you all done, then we get down to business.

 

Thanks Phant0m and Jaguar for the information and your help.

I'm trying to find a way to investigate this, since I'm not able to clearly reproduce/identify a memory leak with the test I've done so far.

Phant0m, just one question at this time, how many hours does it take to reach 130 MB ?

halcyon, I appreciate your support, thanks for that, anyway there is probably something wrong somewhere to be investigated...

Regards,

Frederic

 

Jag,

no need for name calling. But the evidence is still not there

And if you look around for my criticism about LnS you can easily notice that I'm not a fanboy of LnS (nor any other software for that matter). Perhaps it matters to you, perhaps not.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I didn't deny the possibility of a leak, but I didn't see conclusive (or even strong) proof of that.

I'm myself considering moving to another fw, but for completely different reasons.

As for the Slashdot reference, I think that was pointed towards another poster, who is going around the forums and posting in many threads about firewalls that "LnS has a leak", when he has no proof.

I can sympathise with his situation that LnS on his machine is consuming 15MB of memory, but that hardly constitutes as evidence (or even a strong possibility) of a real memory leak in LnS.

I think it is ok to criticise and ask for improvements, but I think it should be on factual basis.

Not through guesses and slander (not a reference to you).

So no need to be defensive, but do understand my point that I try to work on the basis of facts, if possible.

If others feel offended, that is not my goal, but I try to set things right.

LnS probably has excessive memory usage under some circumstances and certainly can be problematic. That is as much as the info points to, imho (afaik, ymmv).

friendly regards,
Halcyon

 

Halcyon, you are pushing a very thin line with me, if you have a problem with me, let’s deal with it privately.

With utmost respect, you wouldn’t know what evidence were if it hit you flat in the face.
And it is obvious you aren’t reading fully everything being said, or you are but you being purposely or otherwise ignorant. I’ve reported this anomaly long before (and privately) this topic been started, I’ve shown Frederic an image of Look ‘n’ Stop process consuming over 130MB of memory in the background. I also included information regarding what I had observed at the time, and tracing the problem back to Application filtering and a block for either applications connecting or launching rights (which I don’t remember at this time). And if I were to unblock, the memory consumption would halt and all would be well.

I’m going around posting … am I? Interesting, as for no proof of Look ‘n’ Stop security leaks… Which one you in reference too? There are some, like in many other software firewalls, how about the leaks that IDS and Deep Packet Inspection capable firewalls can seal and Look ‘n’ Stop doesn’t?

Another fine example! You must skim through most of the stuff being said by myself, your loss though, because skimming shows you really don’t have much interest or consideration of the posters, and regardless, posting in response is just wrong on your part.

If you hadn’t skimmed, you would have known I weren’t talking about Look ‘n’ Stop on my machine using only 15MB of memory, look closely and you should see something about “130+MB”.

-
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=484490&postcount=41

From what I’m gathering, you believe only knowledgeable users are authorized to report bugs/issues, this way life is much easier for the developers, so they can easily reproduce/identify. I’m sorry, I disagree; I think the developers should be honoured to get any bit of information in regards to problems users (knowledgeable or otherwise) may have experienced, legit or otherwise, the information can be used to better the product.

Anyways, enjoy!

------
Hi Frederic
Sometime this or next week, I’ll setup my old computer grounds, and get the information you asking for, among other things.

 

My apologies, I had not noticed your 130+ MB report. You are right in that.

As for the word leak, I was purely referring to memory leaks, and not to security leaks.

And the references were not directet towards you. I have no problem with you (quite the opposite, I find your posts very thorough and helpful).

I have respect for your attempts and your choice of firewall, although I do differ in my view of what is a memory leak (as an ex-developer).

Also, I think everybody should be able to provide bug reports, my apologies again if you felt otherwise.

I can put this discussion to rest and I hope Frederic will look into the memory usage patterns of LnS (esp. the application filtering as you've noted in your posts), be that leak or something else.

friendly regards,
halcyon

 

Thanks halcyon, for the clarity…

Being a developer doesn’t necessary mean you are qualified to know the alphabet, among many other things.

A.) We know Look ‘n’ Stop uses around 7-8MB of memory, and we also know that it can gradually use more if there are Log activities. And we know Look ‘n’ Stop is capable of releasing the borrowed memory when in regards.

B.) But here is the thing I can’t quite follow, you think it is normal for approximately 7-8MB application (with no Log Activity) to consume and ongoing amount of memory and WITHOUT releasing and growing 130+MB… Hmmmm now I’m very confused (not to what a memory leak is, but why you can’t seem to comprehend).

Maybe you been misinformed, try the global dictionary, http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid1_gci213633_dbg1,00.html

 

Maybe I have a reading comprehension issue.

I didn't notice that somebody had been able to pin-point a case where the memory was not released (system memory consumption after LnS exe/dll unload does not show release of locked pages).

If this is the case, then it is in my book a memory leak as well.

Again, no offense meant and I think we have the same definition of a leak.

Now this is really my last post on this issue.

I'm sure Frederic has noticed it by now and will pay attention to it

best regards,
Halcyon

 

Its cool halcyon, we all are like that sometimes.