On 03/10/2015 05:32 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:56:11PM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
in virDomainFSInfoFree(), don't free the virDomainFSInfo data.
==10670== 80 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 576 of 793 ==10670== at 0x4A06BC3: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:618) ==10670== by 0x509DEBD: virAlloc (viralloc.c:144) ==10670== by 0x19FBD558: qemuAgentGetFSInfo (qemu_agent.c:1837) ==10670== by 0x1A03CF91: qemuDomainGetFSInfo (qemu_driver.c:19238)
Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- src/libvirt-domain.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) This does fix the memory leak and makes the function behave like it's documented in virDomainGetFSInfo and virDomainFSInfoFree: http://libvirt.org/html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainGetFSInfo http://libvirt.org/html/libvirt-libvirt-domain.html#virDomainFSInfoFree
But it changes the public API - if there are applications that already work around this function by freeing the info, this change would introduce a double free.
I would NACK this if the documentation for both APIs didn't say that's how this function should behave.
I'd like to hear a second opinion. I don't think this documentation make any confusable. for using the function virDomainGetFSInfo(), user also need to call virDomainFSInfoFree() on each array element, and call free() info. example:
virDomainFSInfoPtr *info; ndata = virDomainGetFSInfo(dom, &info, 0); for (i = 0; i < ndata; i++) virDomainFSInfoFree(info[i]); VIR_FREE(info); Thanks, Chen
Jan
diff --git a/src/libvirt-domain.c b/src/libvirt-domain.c index 04545fd..7f8a7ce 100644 --- a/src/libvirt-domain.c +++ b/src/libvirt-domain.c @@ -11337,4 +11337,6 @@ virDomainFSInfoFree(virDomainFSInfoPtr info) for (i = 0; i < info->ndevAlias; i++) VIR_FREE(info->devAlias[i]); VIR_FREE(info->devAlias); + + VIR_FREE(info); } -- 1.9.3
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list