qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/29] hw/ide/ahci.c: Fix memory leak spotted by


From: Shannon Zhao
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/29] hw/ide/ahci.c: Fix memory leak spotted by valgrind
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:24:58 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0


On 2015/5/28 20:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 13:08, Shannon Zhao <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > From: Shannon Zhao <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > valgrind complains about:
>> > ==23381== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 438 of 
>> > 2,785
>> > ==23381==    at 0x4C2845D: malloc (in 
>> > /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x35478F: malloc_and_trace (vl.c:2556)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x64C770E: g_malloc (in /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.3600.3)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x3ED98B: qemu_extend_irqs (irq.c:55)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x3EDA17: qemu_allocate_irqs (irq.c:64)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x43D767: ahci_init (ahci.c:1356)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x43DAC5: sysbus_ahci_realize (ahci.c:1520)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x3EA4CC: device_set_realized (qdev.c:1058)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x516CD2: property_set_bool (object.c:1514)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x5155CC: object_property_set (object.c:837)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x5178EE: object_property_set_qobject (qom-qobject.c:24)
>> > ==23381==    by 0x51583B: object_property_set_bool (object.c:905)
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <address@hidden>
>> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <address@hidden>
>> > ---
>> >  hw/ide/ahci.c | 1 +
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/hw/ide/ahci.c b/hw/ide/ahci.c
>> > index 9e5d862..4702a05 100644
>> > --- a/hw/ide/ahci.c
>> > +++ b/hw/ide/ahci.c
>> > @@ -1367,6 +1367,7 @@ void ahci_init(AHCIState *s, DeviceState *qdev, 
>> > AddressSpace *as, int ports)
>> >          ad->port.dma->ops = &ahci_dma_ops;
>> >          ide_register_restart_cb(&ad->port);
>> >      }
>> > +    g_free(irqs);
>> >  }
> Freeing the return value of qemu_allocate_irqs()
> directly rather than using qemu_free_irqs() looks
> dubious to me.

qemu_free_irqs() will free the return value self of qemu_allocate_irqs()
and also will free all the contents of this array while some of them are
still in use.

-- 
Shannon




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]