Hi,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote:
> > Documentation states that:
> > "Client applications may take a reference on the @task object and use
> > it to monitor the status of the file transfer task."
> >
> > We have been monitoring SpiceFileTransferTask without reference it but
> > since the introduction of file transfer dialog we also unref it after
> > task is finished (on task_finished_remove) leading to critical
> > warnings when task original reference has been freed already.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Victor Toso <victortoso@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/virt-viewer-session-spice.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/virt-viewer-session-spice.c b/src/virt-viewer-session-spice.c
> > index 731f074..fdbfd5d 100644
> > --- a/src/virt-viewer-session-spice.c
> > +++ b/src/virt-viewer-session-spice.c
> > @@ -943,7 +943,7 @@ on_new_file_transfer(SpiceMainChannel *channel G_GNUC_UNUSED,
> > {
> > VirtViewerSessionSpice *self = VIRT_VIEWER_SESSION_SPICE(user_data);
> > virt_viewer_file_transfer_dialog_add_task(self->priv->file_transfer_dialog,
> > - task);
> > + g_object_ref(task));
>
> Hey, _add_task() is already taking a reference on the task through
> g_hash_table_insert(self->priv->file_transfers, g_object_ref(task), w);
> and then _task_finish() does:
>
> d->task = task;
> g_hash_table_steal(self->priv->file_transfers, task);
>
> at that point, 'd' should have ownership of the task. I don't
> see where the reference you add would be released.
You are right. Bug is likely on spice-gtk... I'll take a look!
Many thanks
>
> Christophe
_______________________________________________
virt-tools-list mailing list
virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
