1. Patchew
  2. QEMU
  3. View series

[PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init

kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com posted 1 patch 5 years, 9 months ago
Test docker-quick@centos7 passed
Test FreeBSD passed
Test docker-mingw@fedora passed
Test checkpatch passed
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu tags/patchew/20200212033641.249560-1-kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com
Maintainers: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsyanko@gmail.com>, "Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
There is a newer version of this series
hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com 5 years, 9 months ago 
From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>

It's easy to reproduce as follow:
virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute": "device-list-properties",
"arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'

ASAN shows memory leak stack:
  #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
  #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
  #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
  #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
  #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
  #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
  #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
  #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152

Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
---
 hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
--- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
+++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
@@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
     SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
     Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
 
-    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
-                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
-    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
-
     /* memory mapping */
     memory_region_init_io(&s->iomem, obj, &exynos4210_uart_ops, s,
                           "exynos4210.uart", EXYNOS4210_UART_REGS_MEM_SIZE);
@@ -691,6 +687,10 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
 {
     Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
 
+    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
+                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
+    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
+
     qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers(&s->chr, exynos4210_uart_can_receive,
                              exynos4210_uart_receive, exynos4210_uart_event,
                              NULL, s, NULL, true);
-- 
2.23.0
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 5 years, 9 months ago 
On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
> From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> 
> It's easy to reproduce as follow:
> virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute": "device-list-properties",
> "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
> 
> ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>    #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>    #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>    #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>    #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>    #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>    #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
>    #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
>    #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
> 
> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> ---
>   hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
> --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>       SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>       Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>   
> -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
> -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
> -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;

Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?

> -
>       /* memory mapping */
>       memory_region_init_io(&s->iomem, obj, &exynos4210_uart_ops, s,
>                             "exynos4210.uart", EXYNOS4210_UART_REGS_MEM_SIZE);
> @@ -691,6 +687,10 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>   {
>       Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>   
> +    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
> +                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
> +    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
> +
>       qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers(&s->chr, exynos4210_uart_can_receive,
>                                exynos4210_uart_receive, exynos4210_uart_event,
>                                NULL, s, NULL, true);
>
RE: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Chenqun (kuhn) 5 years, 9 months ago 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
>To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
>Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
><zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>exynos4210_uart_init
>
>On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
>> From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>>
>> It's easy to reproduce as follow:
>> virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
>> "device-list-properties", "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
>>
>> ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>>    #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>>    #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>>    #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>>    #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>>    #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
>/qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>>    #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
>>    #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
>>    #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
>> /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
>>
>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
>> --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>>       SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>>       Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>>
>> -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>> -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>> -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>
>Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
>
Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!

Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with fifo_timeout_timer.   
Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set function.

I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().  
Does it have any other effects?

Thanks.
>> -
>>       /* memory mapping */
>>       memory_region_init_io(&s->iomem, obj, &exynos4210_uart_ops, s,
>>                             "exynos4210.uart",
>> EXYNOS4210_UART_REGS_MEM_SIZE); @@ -691,6 +687,10 @@ static void
>exynos4210_uart_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>>   {
>>       Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>>
>> +    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>> +                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>> +    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>> +
>>       qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers(&s->chr, exynos4210_uart_can_receive,
>>                                exynos4210_uart_receive, exynos4210_uart_event,
>>                                NULL, s, NULL, true);
>>
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 5 years, 9 months ago 
Cc'ing Eduardo & Markus.

On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Chenqun (kuhn) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
>> To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>> devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
>> Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
>> <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>> exynos4210_uart_init
>>
>> On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
>>> From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> It's easy to reproduce as follow:
>>> virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
>>> "device-list-properties", "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
>>>
>>> ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>>>     #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>>>     #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>>>     #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>>>     #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>>>     #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
>> /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>>>     #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
>>>     #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
>>>     #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
>>> /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>    hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>> index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
>>> --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>> +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>> @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>>>        SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>>>        Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>>>
>>> -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>>> -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>>> -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>>
>> Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
>>
> Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!
> 
> Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with fifo_timeout_timer.
> Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set function.
> 
> I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().
> Does it have any other effects?

IIUC when we use both init() and realize(), realize() should only 
contains on code that consumes the object properties... But maybe the 
design is not clear. Then why not move all the init() code to realize()?

>>> -
>>>        /* memory mapping */
>>>        memory_region_init_io(&s->iomem, obj, &exynos4210_uart_ops, s,
>>>                              "exynos4210.uart",
>>> EXYNOS4210_UART_REGS_MEM_SIZE); @@ -691,6 +687,10 @@ static void
>> exynos4210_uart_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>>>    {
>>>        Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>>>
>>> +    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>>> +                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>>> +    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>>> +
>>>        qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers(&s->chr, exynos4210_uart_can_receive,
>>>                                 exynos4210_uart_receive, exynos4210_uart_event,
>>>                                 NULL, s, NULL, true);
>>>
>
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Eduardo Habkost 5 years, 9 months ago 
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:39:55AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Cc'ing Eduardo & Markus.
> 
> On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Chenqun (kuhn) wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
> > > To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
> > > devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
> > > Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
> > > <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
> > > exynos4210_uart_init
> > > 
> > > On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
> > > > From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> > > > 
> > > > It's easy to reproduce as follow:
> > > > virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
> > > > "device-list-properties", "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
> > > > 
> > > > ASAN shows memory leak stack:
> > > >     #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
> > > >     #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
> > > >     #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
> > > >     #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
> > > >     #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
> > > /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
> > > >     #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
> > > >     #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
> > > >     #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
> > > > /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >    hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
> > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> > > > index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
> > > > @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
> > > >        SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
> > > >        Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
> > > > 
> > > > -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
> > > > -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
> > > > -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
> > > 
> > > Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
> > > 
> > Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!
> > 
> > Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with fifo_timeout_timer.
> > Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set function.
> > 
> > I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().
> > Does it have any other effects?
> 
> IIUC when we use both init() and realize(), realize() should only contains
> on code that consumes the object properties... But maybe the design is not
> clear. Then why not move all the init() code to realize()?

Normally I would recommend the opposite: delay as much as
possible to realize(), to avoid unwanted side effects when (e.g.)
running qom-list-properties.

But as s->wordtime is a simple struct field (that we could even
decide to expose to the outside as a read-only QOM property), it
doesn't really matter.  Personally, I would keep it where it is
just to avoid churn.

-- 
Eduardo
RE: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Chenqun (kuhn) 5 years, 9 months ago 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eduardo Habkost [mailto:ehabkost@redhat.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:20 AM
>To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>Cc: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org;
>qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
><zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>; Markus Armbruster
><armbru@redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>exynos4210_uart_init
>
>On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:39:55AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Cc'ing Eduardo & Markus.
>>
>> On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Chenqun (kuhn) wrote:
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
>> > > To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>> > > devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
>> > > Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
>> > > <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>> > > exynos4210_uart_init
>> > >
>> > > On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
>> > > > From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > It's easy to reproduce as follow:
>> > > > virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
>> > > > "device-list-properties",
>"arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
>> > > >
>> > > > ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>> > > >     #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>> > > >     #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full
>/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>> > > >     #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>> > > >     #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns
>/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>> > > >     #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
>> > > /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>> > > >     #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type
>/qemu/qom/object.c:516
>> > > >     #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type
>/qemu/qom/object.c:684
>> > > >     #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
>> > > > /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
>> > > >
>> > > > Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >    hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>> > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
>> > > > --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>> > > >        SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>> > > >        Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>> > > >
>> > > > -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>> > > > -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>> > > > -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>> > >
>> > > Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
>> > >
>> > Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!
>> >
>> > Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with
>fifo_timeout_timer.
>> > Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set
>function.
>> >
>> > I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().
>> > Does it have any other effects?
>>
>> IIUC when we use both init() and realize(), realize() should only
>> contains on code that consumes the object properties... But maybe the
>> design is not clear. Then why not move all the init() code to realize()?
>
>Normally I would recommend the opposite: delay as much as possible to
>realize(), to avoid unwanted side effects when (e.g.) running qom-list-
>properties.
>
>But as s->wordtime is a simple struct field (that we could even decide to
>expose to the outside as a read-only QOM property), it doesn't really matter.
>Personally, I would keep it where it is just to avoid churn.
>
OK,  Let's keep s->wordtime  in init(). 
I will change it in next version.

Thanks.
>--
>Eduardo
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Markus Armbruster 5 years, 9 months ago 
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:39:55AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Cc'ing Eduardo & Markus.
>> 
>> On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Chenqun (kuhn) wrote:
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
>> > > To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>> > > devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
>> > > Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
>> > > <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>> > > exynos4210_uart_init
>> > > 
>> > > On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
>> > > > From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>> > > > 
>> > > > It's easy to reproduce as follow:
>> > > > virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
>> > > > "device-list-properties", "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
>> > > > 
>> > > > ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>> > > >     #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>> > > >     #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>> > > >     #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>> > > >     #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>> > > >     #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
>> > > /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>> > > >     #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
>> > > >     #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
>> > > >     #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
>> > > > /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
>> > > > 
>> > > > Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >    hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>> > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > > > 
>> > > > diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
>> > > > --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>> > > > @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>> > > >        SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>> > > >        Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>> > > > 
>> > > > -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>> > > > -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>> > > > -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>> > > 
>> > > Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
>> > > 
>> > Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!
>> > 
>> > Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with fifo_timeout_timer.
>> > Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set function.
>> > 
>> > I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().
>> > Does it have any other effects?
>> 
>> IIUC when we use both init() and realize(), realize() should only contains
>> on code that consumes the object properties... But maybe the design is not
>> clear. Then why not move all the init() code to realize()?
>
> Normally I would recommend the opposite: delay as much as
> possible to realize(), to avoid unwanted side effects when (e.g.)
> running qom-list-properties.

Sadly, our documentation on device initialization and realization is
rather sparse, and developers are left guessing.  Their guesses are
often based on what existing code does.  Some of the existing code even
gets things right.

A few rules from the top of my head:

* Creating and immediately destroying an object must be safe and free of
  side effects: initialization may only touch the object itself, and
  finalization must clean up everything initialization creates.

* unrealize() must clean up everything realize() creates.

* Since initialization cannot fail, code that needs to fail gracefully
  must live in realize().

* Since property values get set between initialization and realization,
  code that uses property values must live in realize().

* Dynamic properties have to be created in initialization to be visible
  in introspection.

> But as s->wordtime is a simple struct field (that we could even
> decide to expose to the outside as a read-only QOM property), it
> doesn't really matter.  Personally, I would keep it where it is
> just to avoid churn.
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 5 years, 9 months ago 
On 2/13/20 3:28 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:39:55AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Cc'ing Eduardo & Markus.
>>>
>>> On 2/12/20 7:44 AM, Chenqun (kuhn) wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [mailto:philmd@redhat.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:16 PM
>>>>> To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>; qemu-
>>>>> devel@nongnu.org; i.mitsyanko@gmail.com; peter.maydell@linaro.org
>>>>> Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Zhanghailiang
>>>>> <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in
>>>>> exynos4210_uart_init
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/12/20 4:36 AM, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy to reproduce as follow:
>>>>>> virsh qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{"execute":
>>>>>> "device-list-properties", "arguments":{"typename":"exynos4210.uart"}}'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ASAN shows memory leak stack:
>>>>>>      #1 0xfffd896d71cb in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x571cb)
>>>>>>      #2 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_full /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>>>>>>      #3 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>>>>>>      #4 0xaaad270beee3 in timer_new_ns /qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>>>>>>      #5 0xaaad270beee3 in exynos4210_uart_init
>>>>> /qemu/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c:677
>>>>>>      #6 0xaaad275c8f4f in object_initialize_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:516
>>>>>>      #7 0xaaad275c91bb in object_new_with_type /qemu/qom/object.c:684
>>>>>>      #8 0xaaad2755df2f in qmp_device_list_properties
>>>>>> /qemu/qom/qom-qmp-cmds.c:152
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>>>>> index 25d6588e41..5048db5410 100644
>>>>>> --- a/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>>>>> +++ b/hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c
>>>>>> @@ -674,10 +674,6 @@ static void exynos4210_uart_init(Object *obj)
>>>>>>         SysBusDevice *dev = SYS_BUS_DEVICE(obj);
>>>>>>         Exynos4210UartState *s = EXYNOS4210_UART(dev);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -    s->fifo_timeout_timer = timer_new_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
>>>>>> -                                         exynos4210_uart_timeout_int, s);
>>>>>> -    s->wordtime = NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND * 10 / 9600;
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you moving s->wordtime from init() to realize()?
>>>>>
>>>> Hi  Philippe,  thanks for your reply!
>>>>
>>>> Because I found the variable wordtime is usually used with fifo_timeout_timer.
>>>> Eg, they are used together in the exynos4210_uart_rx_timeout_set function.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't find anything wrong with wordtime in the realize().
>>>> Does it have any other effects?
>>>
>>> IIUC when we use both init() and realize(), realize() should only contains
>>> on code that consumes the object properties... But maybe the design is not
>>> clear. Then why not move all the init() code to realize()?
>>
>> Normally I would recommend the opposite: delay as much as
>> possible to realize(), to avoid unwanted side effects when (e.g.)
>> running qom-list-properties.
> 
> Sadly, our documentation on device initialization and realization is
> rather sparse, and developers are left guessing.  Their guesses are
> often based on what existing code does.  Some of the existing code even
> gets things right.
> 
> A few rules from the top of my head:

Worth a new thread...

> 
> * Creating and immediately destroying an object must be safe and free of
>    side effects: initialization may only touch the object itself, and
>    finalization must clean up everything initialization creates.
> 
> * unrealize() must clean up everything realize() creates.

Hmm I guess remember someone once said "only for hot-pluggable objects, 
else don't bother". But then we make a non-hot-pluggable object as 
hot-pluggable and have to fix leaks. Or we start a new hot-pluggable 
device based on some code without unrealize()...

> 
> * Since initialization cannot fail, code that needs to fail gracefully
>    must live in realize().
> 
> * Since property values get set between initialization and realization,
>    code that uses property values must live in realize().
> 
> * Dynamic properties have to be created in initialization to be visible
>    in introspection.
> 
>> But as s->wordtime is a simple struct field (that we could even
>> decide to expose to the outside as a read-only QOM property), it
>> doesn't really matter.  Personally, I would keep it where it is
>> just to avoid churn.
> 
>
Re: [PATCH] hw/char/exynos4210_uart: Fix memleaks in exynos4210_uart_init
Posted by Peter Maydell 5 years, 9 months ago 
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 16:33, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
> > * unrealize() must clean up everything realize() creates.
>
> Hmm I guess remember someone once said "only for hot-pluggable objects,
> else don't bother". But then we make a non-hot-pluggable object as
> hot-pluggable and have to fix leaks. Or we start a new hot-pluggable
> device based on some code without unrealize()...

Yeah. Almost all our devices are not hot-pluggable and don't
have unrealize code. Better to just have them stay that way,
or to add untested unreachable code in an unrealize method? Dunno.

thanks
-- PMM

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.