On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:47:29PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote: > On 2/23/22 11:01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:47:20AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote: > >> On 2/23/22 10:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > >>>> After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per > >>>> domain NVRAM path even though it might have been parsed earlier > >>>> from domain XML. The way we do that leads to a memleak: > >>>> > >>>> 43 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 330 of 682 > >>>> at 0x483F7E5: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:381) > >>>> by 0x50D5B18: g_malloc (in /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.7000.2) > >>>> by 0x50EFA4F: g_strdup (in /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.7000.2) > >>>> by 0x49E774E: virXPathString (virxml.c:88) > >>>> by 0x4A3F0E4: virDomainDefParseBootLoaderOptions (domain_conf.c:18226) > >>>> by 0x4A3F49C: virDomainDefParseBootOptions (domain_conf.c:18298) > >>>> by 0x4A448C3: virDomainDefParseXML (domain_conf.c:19598) > >>>> by 0x4A487A1: virDomainDefParseNode (domain_conf.c:20404) > >>>> by 0x117FCF: testCompareXMLToArgv (qemuxml2argvtest.c:726) > >>>> by 0x142124: virTestRun (testutils.c:142) > >>>> by 0x1423D4: virTestRunLog (testutils.c:197) > >>>> by 0x140A76: mymain (qemuxml2argvtest.c:3406) > >>>> > >>>> If we parsed NVRAM path from domain XML we must refrain from > >>>> generating new path. > >>> > >>> Hmm, so we honour the 'nvram' path from the XML, even when doing > >>> firmware auto-select ? > >>> > >>> That is contrary to the qemuDomainUndefineFlags method expectations > >>> which unconditionally uses the qemuDomainNVRAMPathFormat result > >>> when deleting nvram, ignoring 'nvram' path in the XML > >>> > >> > >> Good point. I think the question boils down to, what should happen when > >> FW autoselection is enabled and user told use where they want to have > >> NVRAM stored? It's a tricky situation because if the NVRAM file does > >> exist we won't overwrite it. And yet, if we ever selected a different FW > >> image the pre-existing NVRAM might be incompatible with the new FW image. > > > > The new RESET_NVRAM flag can recover from this last scenario now. > > > > > > So we need to make the qemuDomainUndefineFlags method honour the nvram > > path, if it was provided. > > Fair enough. So do you prefer a follow up patch for fixing > qemuDomainUndefineFlags() or reverting this patch and regenerating NVRAM > path always? I'll send a patch for qemuDomainUndefineFlags shortly. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
