On 2/1/22 15:43, Michal Privoznik wrote:

When virNodeDeviceObjListRemove() is called, the passed virNodeDeviceObj is removed from internal list of node devices and then unrefed and unlocked. While the former is warranted (the object was refed at the beginning of the function) the unlock is not. In fact, it's wrong from conceptual POV. We still want threads working on the object tu mutually exclude each other.

Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c index 2e4ef2df3c..7a560349d4 100644 --- a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c +++ b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ virNodeDeviceObjListRemove(virNodeDeviceObjList *devs, virObjectRWLockWrite(devs); virObjectLock(obj); virNodeDeviceObjListRemoveLocked(devs, obj); - virNodeDeviceObjEndAPI(&obj); + virObjectUnref(obj); virObjectRWUnlock(devs); }

Self-NAK, I need to squash in two more bits. Michal