Re: [PATCH 1/7] allwinner-a10-pit: Use ptimer_free() in the finalize function to avoid memleaks

[Peter Maydell]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 07:19, Gan Qixin <ganqixin@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> When running device-introspect-test, a memory leak occurred in the 
> a10_pit_init
> function, so use ptimer_free() in the finalize function to avoid it.
>
> ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>
> Indirect leak of 288 byte(s) in 6 object(s) allocated from:
>     #0 0xffffab97e1f0 in __interceptor_calloc (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xee1f0)
>     #1 0xffffab256800 in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x56800)
>     #2 0xaaabf555db84 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:523
>     #3 0xaaabf555db84 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:544
>     #4 0xaaabf555db84 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:562
>     #5 0xaaabf555db84 in ptimer_init /qemu/hw/core/ptimer.c:433
>     #6 0xaaabf57415e8 in a10_pit_init /qemu/hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c:278
>     #7 0xaaabf6339f6c in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:515
>     #8 0xaaabf633ca04 in object_initialize_child_with_propsv 
> /qemu/qom/object.c:564
>     #9 0xaaabf633cc08 in object_initialize_child_with_props 
> /qemu/qom/object.c:547
>     #10 0xaaabf5b94680 in aw_a10_init /qemu/hw/arm/allwinner-a10.c:49
>     #11 0xaaabf6339f6c in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:515
>     #12 0xaaabf633a1e0 in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:729
>
> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gan Qixin <ganqixin@huawei.com>
> ---
> Cc: Beniamino Galvani <b.galvani@gmail.com>
> ---
>  hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c b/hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c
> index f84fc0ea25..be211983b0 100644
> --- a/hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c
> +++ b/hw/timer/allwinner-a10-pit.c
> @@ -279,6 +279,16 @@ static void a10_pit_init(Object *obj)
>      }
>  }
>
> +static void a10_pit_finalize(Object *obj)
> +{
> +    AwA10PITState *s = AW_A10_PIT(obj);
> +    int i;
> +
> +    for (i = 0; i < AW_A10_PIT_TIMER_NR; i++) {
> +        ptimer_free(s->timer[i]);
> +    }
> +}
> +
>  static void a10_pit_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data)
>  {
>      DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(klass);
> @@ -290,11 +300,12 @@ static void a10_pit_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void 
> *data)
>  }
>
>  static const TypeInfo a10_pit_info = {
> -    .name = TYPE_AW_A10_PIT,
> -    .parent = TYPE_SYS_BUS_DEVICE,
> -    .instance_size = sizeof(AwA10PITState),
> -    .instance_init = a10_pit_init,
> -    .class_init = a10_pit_class_init,
> +    .name              = TYPE_AW_A10_PIT,
> +    .parent            = TYPE_SYS_BUS_DEVICE,
> +    .instance_size     = sizeof(AwA10PITState),
> +    .instance_init     = a10_pit_init,
> +    .instance_finalize = a10_pit_finalize,
> +    .class_init        = a10_pit_class_init,
>  };

Please don't make unrelated whitespace changes like this in a patch.
We don't line up the assignments in this sort of struct -- this is
deliberate, so that if a new line is added whose field name happens
to be longer than those used already, the patch does not have to
touch all the lines in the struct to maintain the formatting.
Instead you get a readable diff where only the new line changes,
not all the others.

thanks
-- PMM