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

[Pan Nengyuan]

On 2/27/2020 4:41 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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?

We just only declare parent_realize field in S390CPUClass(), it seems nothing 
to do in parent_unrealize.

typedef struct S390CPUClass {
...
DeviceRealize parent_realize;    // no parent_unrealize;
...
}

So I think we can't use it.

Thanks.

> 
>