Bug 808452

Summary:	nfs: mem leak found with valgrind
Product:	[Community] GlusterFS	Reporter:	Saurabh <saujain>
Component:	nfs	Assignee:	Rajesh <rajesh>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	pre-release	CC:	gluster-bugs, mzywusko, rajesh, vagarwal, vbellur
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-01-28 06:13:17 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Saurabh 2012-03-30 12:38:38 UTC

Description of problem:

==6064== 220 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 180 of 304
==6064==    at 0x4A04A28: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:467)
==6064==    by 0x4C5B188: __gf_calloc (mem-pool.c:150)
==6064==    by 0x4C1F6CE: _dict_set (dict.c:278)
==6064==    by 0x4C1F88C: dict_set (dict.c:321)
==6064==    by 0x4C2344D: dict_set_str (dict.c:2140)
==6064==    by 0x93ABC5A: client_setvolume (client-handshake.c:1546)
==6064==    by 0x93ACB5E: client_dump_version_cbk (client-handshake.c:1844)
==6064==    by 0x4EB19FB: rpc_clnt_handle_reply (rpc-clnt.c:797)
==6064==    by 0x4EB1D98: rpc_clnt_notify (rpc-clnt.c:916)
==6064==    by 0x4EADE7B: rpc_transport_notify (rpc-transport.c:498)
==6064==    by 0x854E26F: socket_event_poll_in (socket.c:1686)
==6064==    by 0x854E7F3: socket_event_handler (socket.c:1801)
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
on git head

How reproducible:
executed valgrind once

Steps to Reproduce:
1. put valgrind over nfs process
2. execute untar of linux-kernel tarball and iozone
3. 
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Krishna Srinivas 2012-08-14 11:33:34 UTC

Going through the code - it does not look like there is a memleak. Need to see why valgrind thinks that this is a memleak.

Comment 2 Rajesh 2013-01-28 06:13:17 UTC

No mem-leaks were found in the recent tests.