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

[Pan Nengyuan]

On 2/27/2020 5:04 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 27.02.20 09:58, Pan Nengyuan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> So you should add it and properly call the parent_unrealize from your
> new unrealize function?
> 
> AFAIKS you are overwriting cpu_common_unrealizefn set in hw/core/cpu.c
> for TYPE_CPU with this change.

Oh, I think you are right, I will change it.

Thanks.
>