Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] s390x: fix memleaks in cpu_finalize

[David Hildenbrand]

On 27.02.20 03:50, Pan Nengyuan wrote:
> This patch fix memleaks when we call tests/qtest/cpu-plug-test on s390x. The 
> leak stack is as follow:
> 
> Direct leak of 48 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
>     #0 0x7fb43c7cd970 in __interceptor_calloc (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xef970)
>     #1 0x7fb43be2149d in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x5249d)
>     #2 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_full 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>     #3 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>     #4 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_ns 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>     #5 0x558ba96da716 in s390_cpu_initfn 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/target/s390x/cpu.c:285
>     #6 0x558ba9c969ab in object_init_with_type 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:372
>     #7 0x558ba9c9eb5f in object_initialize_with_type 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:516
>     #8 0x558ba9c9f053 in object_new_with_type 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:684
>     #9 0x558ba967ede6 in s390x_new_cpu 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c:64
>     #10 0x558ba99764b3 in hmp_cpu_add 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/core/machine-hmp-cmds.c:57
>     #11 0x558ba9b1c27f in handle_hmp_command 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/hmp.c:1082
>     #12 0x558ba96c1b02 in qmp_human_monitor_command 
> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/misc.c:142
> 
> Reported-by: Euler Robot <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <address@hidden>
> ---
> Cc: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> ---
> v2->v1:
> - Similarly to other cleanups, move timer_new into realize(Suggested by 
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
> v3->v2:
> - Also do the timer_free in unrealize, it seems more balance.
> ---


As I already said, I think this is init and not realize stuff. Do we
have a convention now and documented that?

Anyhow, I don't really care
[...]


> @@ -453,6 +466,7 @@ static void s390_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void 
> *data)
>  
>      device_class_set_parent_realize(dc, s390_cpu_realizefn,
>                                      &scc->parent_realize);
> +    dc->unrealize = s390_cpu_unrealizefn;

Shouldn't we use device_class_set_parent_unrealize?


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb