Re: [PATCH-for-5.0? 3/3] hw/openrisc/pic_cpu: Use qdev gpio rather than qemu_allocate_irqs()

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:15 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi Stafford,
>
> On 4/13/20 1:33 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:29:43PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> Switch to using the qdev gpio API which is preferred over
> >> qemu_allocate_irqs(). Doing so we also stop leaking the
> >> allocated memory. One step to eventually deprecate and
> >> remove qemu_allocate_irqs() one day.
> >>
> >> Patch created mechanically using spatch with this script
> >> inspired from commit d6ef883d9d7:
> >>
> >>   @@
> >>   typedef qemu_irq;
> >>   identifier irqs, handler;
> >>   expression opaque, count, i;
> >>   @@
> >>   -   qemu_irq *irqs;
> >>       ...
> >>   -   irqs = qemu_allocate_irqs(handler, opaque, count);
> >>   +   qdev_init_gpio_in(DEVICE(opaque), handler, count);
> >>       <+...
> >>   -   irqs[i]
> >>   +   qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(opaque), i)
> >>       ...+>
> >>   ?-  g_free(irqs);
> >>
> >> Inspired-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>  hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c | 5 ++---
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c b/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
> >> index 36f9350830..4b0c92f842 100644
> >> --- a/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
> >> +++ b/hw/openrisc/pic_cpu.c
> >> @@ -52,10 +52,9 @@ static void openrisc_pic_cpu_handler(void *opaque, int 
> >> irq, int level)
> >>  void cpu_openrisc_pic_init(OpenRISCCPU *cpu)
> >>  {
> >>      int i;
> >> -    qemu_irq *qi;
> >> -    qi = qemu_allocate_irqs(openrisc_pic_cpu_handler, cpu, NR_IRQS);
> >> +    qdev_init_gpio_in(DEVICE(cpu), openrisc_pic_cpu_handler, NR_IRQS);
> >>
> >>      for (i = 0; i < NR_IRQS; i++) {
> >> -        cpu->env.irq[i] = qi[i];
> >> +        cpu->env.irq[i] = qdev_get_gpio_in(DEVICE(cpu), i);
> >>      }
> >>  }
> >
> > This looks fine to me.
> >
> > Why do you have the '5.0?' in the subject?
>
> Simply because similar commit d6ef883d9d7 was merged in 5.0-rc1 (and it
> fixes a bug reported by Coverity, I'm not sure why Coverity didn't
> reported this too).

Actually Coverity reported this issue as CID1421934 "Resource leak" on
2020-03-19 18:52:20.

  The system resource will not be reclaimed and reused, reducing the
future availability of the resource.
  In cpu_openrisc_pic_init: Leak of memory or pointers to system
resources (CWE-404)

>
> >
> > -Stafford
> >