On a Wednesday in 2024, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
Make sure the old value in `scsi_target->wwpn` is free'd before
replacing it.
While at it, simplify the code.
"While at it" usually means it should have been a separate commit,
especially if the simplification changes the behavior of the code.
==9104== 38 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1,943
of 3,250
==9104== at 0x483B8C0: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:442)
==9104== by 0x4DFB69B: g_malloc (gmem.c:130)
==9104== by 0x4E1921D: g_strdup (gstrfuncs.c:363)
==9104== by 0x495D60B: g_strdup_inline (gstrfuncs.h:321)
==9104== by 0x495D60B: virFCReadRportValue (virfcp.c:62)
==9104== by 0x4A5F5CB: virNodeDeviceGetSCSITargetCaps (node_device_conf.c:2914)
==9104== by 0xBF62529: udevProcessSCSITarget (node_device_udev.c:657)
==9104== by 0xBF62529: udevGetDeviceDetails (node_device_udev.c:1406)
==9104== by 0xBF62529: udevAddOneDevice (node_device_udev.c:1563)
==9104== by 0xBF639B5: udevProcessDeviceListEntry (node_device_udev.c:1637)
==9104== by 0xBF639B5: udevEnumerateDevices (node_device_udev.c:1691)
==9104== by 0xBF639B5: nodeStateInitializeEnumerate (node_device_udev.c:2009)
==9104== by 0x49BDBFD: virThreadHelper (virthread.c:256)
==9104== by 0x5242069: start_thread (in /usr/lib64/libc.so.6)
Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay(a)linux.ibm.com>
---
src/conf/node_device_conf.c | 29 +++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
index 48140b17baa5..c146a9f0c881 100644
--- a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
@@ -2894,9 +2894,9 @@ int
virNodeDeviceGetSCSITargetCaps(const char *sysfsPath,
virNodeDevCapSCSITarget *scsi_target)
{
- int ret = -1;
g_autofree char *dir = NULL;
g_autofree char *rport = NULL;
+ g_autofree char *wwpn = NULL;
VIR_DEBUG("Checking if '%s' is an FC remote port",
scsi_target->name);
@@ -2906,28 +2906,21 @@ virNodeDeviceGetSCSITargetCaps(const char *sysfsPath,
rport = g_path_get_basename(dir);
if (!virFCIsCapableRport(rport))
- goto cleanup;
+ return -1;
+
+ if (virFCReadRportValue(rport, "port_name",
+ &wwpn) < 0) {
+ VIR_WARN("Failed to read port_name for '%s'", rport);
+ return -1;
+ }
VIR_FREE(scsi_target->rport);
scsi_target->rport = g_steal_pointer(&rport);
- if (virFCReadRportValue(scsi_target->rport, "port_name",
- &scsi_target->wwpn) < 0) {
- VIR_WARN("Failed to read port_name for '%s'",
scsi_target->rport);
- goto cleanup;
- }
-
+ VIR_FREE(scsi_target->wwpn);
+ scsi_target->wwpn = g_steal_pointer(&wwpn);
scsi_target->flags |= VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_FC_RPORT;
- ret = 0;
-
- cleanup:
- if (ret < 0) {
- VIR_FREE(scsi_target->rport);
- VIR_FREE(scsi_target->wwpn);
- scsi_target->flags &= ~VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_FC_RPORT;
Before, we cleared out the info if we were not able to refresh it.
Is there a possibility that would lead to stale information?
Jano
- }
-
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
--
2.34.1
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.libvirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.libvirt.org