qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] dump.c: Fix memory leak issue in cleanup proc


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] dump.c: Fix memory leak issue in cleanup processing for dump_init()
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:56:39 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

comments below

On 08/03/14 17:28, Chen Gang wrote:
> In dump_init(), when failure occurs, need notice about 'fd' and memory
> mapping. So call dump_cleanup() for it (need let all initializations at
> front).
> 
> Also simplify dump_cleanup(): remove redundant 'ret' and redundant 'fd'
> checking.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <address@hidden>
> ---
>  dump.c | 18 +++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Please explain what is leaked and how.

The only possibility I can see (without digging very hard) is that
qemu_get_guest_memory_mapping() succeeds and lzo_init() fails (which
should never happen in practice).

Regarding s->fd itself, I'm beyond trying to understand its lifecycle.
Qemu uses a bad ownership model wherein functions, in case of an
internal error, release resources they got from their callers. I'm
unable to reason in such a model. The only function to close fd *ever*
should be qmp_dump_guest_memory() (and that one should close fd with a
direct close() call). Currently fd is basically a global variable,
because the entire dump function tree has access to it (and closes it if
there's an error).

Anyway I guess it's OK to call dump_cleanup() to close s->fd just in case.

If you have a Coverity report, please share it.

Then,

> diff --git a/dump.c b/dump.c
> index ce646bc..71d3e94 100644
> --- a/dump.c
> +++ b/dump.c
> @@ -71,18 +71,14 @@ uint64_t cpu_to_dump64(DumpState *s, uint64_t val)
>  
>  static int dump_cleanup(DumpState *s)
>  {
> -    int ret = 0;
> -

I agree with this change.

>      guest_phys_blocks_free(&s->guest_phys_blocks);
>      memory_mapping_list_free(&s->list);
> -    if (s->fd != -1) {
> -        close(s->fd);
> -    }
> +    close(s->fd);

I disagree. It clobbers errno if s->fd is -1. Even though we don't
particularly care about errno, it sort of disturbs be. Or can you prove
s->fd is never -1 here?

>      if (s->resume) {
>          vm_start();
>      }
>  
> -    return ret;
> +    return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static void dump_error(DumpState *s, const char *reason)
> @@ -1499,6 +1495,8 @@ static int dump_init(DumpState *s, int fd, bool 
> has_format,
>      s->begin = begin;
>      s->length = length;
>  
> +    memory_mapping_list_init(&s->list);
> +
>      guest_phys_blocks_init(&s->guest_phys_blocks);
>      guest_phys_blocks_append(&s->guest_phys_blocks);
>  
> @@ -1526,7 +1524,6 @@ static int dump_init(DumpState *s, int fd, bool 
> has_format,
>      }
>  
>      /* get memory mapping */
> -    memory_mapping_list_init(&s->list);
>      if (paging) {
>          qemu_get_guest_memory_mapping(&s->list, &s->guest_phys_blocks, &err);
>          if (err != NULL) {
> @@ -1622,12 +1619,7 @@ static int dump_init(DumpState *s, int fd, bool 
> has_format,
>      return 0;
>  
>  cleanup:
> -    guest_phys_blocks_free(&s->guest_phys_blocks);
> -
> -    if (s->resume) {
> -        vm_start();
> -    }
> -
> +    dump_cleanup(s);
>      return -1;
>  }
>  
> 

This code is ripe for a generic lifecycle tracking overhaul, but since
my view of ownership tracking is marginal in the qemu developer
community, I'm not motivated.

NB: I'm not nacking your patch, just please explain it better.

Thanks
Laszlo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]