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 <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <[email protected]> > --- > Cc: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > --- > 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? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
