Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes:
> Benoît Canet <benoit.ca...@nodalink.com> writes:
>
>>> --- a/block.c
>>> +++ b/block.c
>>> @@ -2119,10 +2119,11 @@ static void bdrv_delete(BlockDriverState *bs)
>>>
>>> bdrv_close(bs);
>>>
>>
>>
>>> + drive_info_del(drive_get_by_blockdev(bs));
>>> +
>>> /* remove from list, if necessary */
>>> bdrv_make_anon(bs);
>>>
>>> - drive_info_del(drive_get_by_blockdev(bs));
>>
>> Do we really want this move ?
>
> Yes, we do. If bdrv_make_anon() runs before drive_info_del(), this
> conditional in drive_info_del() is always false:
>
> if (dinfo->bdrv->device_name[0]) {
> blk_unref(blk_by_name(dinfo->bdrv->device_name));
> }
>
> I apologize for the hairiness. Things will become *way* simpler in
> PATCH 4.
It's not just temporarily hairy, it's temporarily wrong: double unref is
possible.
drive_del, the gift that keeps on giving...
[...]
