On 2019/12/3 16:32, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 01:53, pannengyuan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/12/2 21:58, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2019 12:15, pannengy...@huawei.com wrote:
>>>> From: PanNengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> ivqs/ovqs/c_ivq/c_ovq is forgot to cleanup in
>>>> virtio_serial_device_unrealize, the memory leak stack is as bellow:
>>>>
>>>> Direct leak of 1290240 byte(s) in 180 object(s) allocated from:
>>>> #0 0x7fc9bfc27560 in calloc (/usr/lib64/libasan.so.3+0xc7560)
>>>> #1 0x7fc9bed6f015 in g_malloc0 (/usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x50015)
>>>> #2 0x5650e02b83e7 in virtio_add_queue
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/hw/virtio/virtio.c:2327
>>>> #3 0x5650e02847b5 in virtio_serial_device_realize
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c:1089
>>>> #4 0x5650e02b56a7 in virtio_device_realize
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/hw/virtio/virtio.c:3504
>>>> #5 0x5650e03bf031 in device_set_realized
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/hw/core/qdev.c:876
>>>> #6 0x5650e0531efd in property_set_bool
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/qom/object.c:2080
>>>> #7 0x5650e053650e in object_property_set_qobject
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/qom/qom-qobject.c:26
>>>> #8 0x5650e0533e14 in object_property_set_bool
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/qom/object.c:1338
>>>> #9 0x5650e04c0e37 in virtio_pci_realize
>>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-4.2.0-rc0/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c:1801
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.ro...@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: PanNengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c | 6 ++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
>>>> index 3325904..da9019a 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
>>>> @@ -1126,9 +1126,15 @@ static void
>>>> virtio_serial_device_unrealize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>>>> {
>>>> VirtIODevice *vdev = VIRTIO_DEVICE(dev);
>>>> VirtIOSerial *vser = VIRTIO_SERIAL(dev);
>>>> + int i;
>>>>
>>>> QLIST_REMOVE(vser, next);
>>>>
>>>> + for (i = 0; i <= vser->bus.max_nr_ports; i++) {
>>>> + virtio_del_queue(vdev, 2 * i);
>>>> + virtio_del_queue(vdev, 2 * i + 1);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> According to virtio_serial_device_realize() and the number of
>>> virtio_add_queue(), I think you have more queues to delete:
>>>
>>> 4 + 2 * vser->bus.max_nr_ports
>>>
>>> (for vser->ivqs[0], vser->ovqs[0], vser->c_ivq, vser->c_ovq,
>>> vser->ivqs[i], vser->ovqs[i]).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Laurent
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks, but I think the queues is correct, the queues in
>> virtio_serial_device_realize is as follow:
>>
>> // here is 2
>> vser->ivqs[0] = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 128, handle_input);
>> vser->ovqs[0] = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 128, handle_output);
>>
>> // here is 2
>> vser->c_ivq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 32, control_in);
>> vser->c_ovq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 32, control_out);
>>
>> // here 2 * (max_nr_ports - 1) ----- i is from 1 to max_nr_ports - 1
>> for (i = 1; i < vser->bus.max_nr_ports; i++) {
>> vser->ivqs[i] = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 128, handle_input);
>> vser->ovqs[i] = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 128, handle_output);
>> }
>>
>> so the total queues number is: 2 * (vser->bus.max_nr_ports + 1)
>>
>
> Yes, you're right. A comment in the code would have helped or written
> clearly like:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 2 * (vser->bus.max_nr_ports + 1); i++) {
> virtio_del_queue(vdev, i);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Laurent
>
>
yes, it would be helpful, Michael S. Tsirkin posted another way to make
it more clear, I will reuse it in next version.
Thanks.
Nengyuan Pan.
