RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 672554 - libvirtd should use selabel_open rather than matchpathcon
Summary: libvirtd should use selabel_open rather than matchpathcon
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: libvirt
Version: 6.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
low
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Daniel Veillard
QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 658657
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-01-25 15:28 UTC by RHEL Program Management
Modified: 2013-01-11 03:45 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version: libvirt-0.8.1-27.el6_0.3
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Starting and shutting down a domain led to a memory leak due to the use of a thread-unfriendly "matchpathcon" (which gets the default security context for the specified path) SELinux API. With this update, libvirt uses improved SELinux APIs and a memory leak no longer occurs.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-14 16:19:35 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2011:0446 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE libvirt bug fix update 2011-04-14 16:18:21 UTC

Description RHEL Program Management 2011-01-25 15:28:23 UTC 
This bug has been copied from bug #658657 and has been proposed
to be backported to 6.0 z-stream (EUS).
Comment 3 Daniel Veillard 2011-01-27 05:45:21 UTC 
Should be fixed with build libvirt-0.8.1-27.el6_0.3,

Daniel
Comment 4 koka xiong 2011-01-27 08:15:23 UTC 
Hi,I am now verifing this bug
I set selinux enforcing status,then I do the test.
bug it seems I can't see any libselinux information
1. service libvirtd stop
2.valgrind --leak-check=full /usr/sbin/libvirtd 2>&1 | tee valgrind.out& pid=$1
Look at the log
==3800== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==3800== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==3800== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==3800== Command: /usr/sbin/libvirtd
==3800== 
==3800== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==3800==    at 0x434708: virUUIDParse (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x434B25: virSetHostUUIDStr (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x41CAF9: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x327861EC5C: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800== 
==3800== 
==3800== HEAP SUMMARY:
==3800==     in use at exit: 459,275 bytes in 6,744 blocks
==3800==   total heap usage: 100,216 allocs, 93,472 frees, 356,530,058 bytes allocated
==3800== 
==3800== 5 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 14 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BDAB: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE74: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 5 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 15 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB8B: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC43: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 6 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 43 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB8B: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 7 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 58 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BDAB: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE41: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 7 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 59 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BDAB: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE63: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 7 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 60 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BDAB: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 7 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 61 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB8B: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC21: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 87 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB8B: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC32: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 9 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 106 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==3800==    by 0x327867FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BDAB: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE52: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 193 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BD97: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE41: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 194 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BD97: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE52: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 195 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BD97: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE63: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 196 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BD97: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BE74: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 197 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BD97: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 198 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB77: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC21: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 199 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB77: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC32: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 200 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB77: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BC43: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 201 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C2BB77: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C3A485: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800==    by 0x3F89C134FA: ??? (in /lib64/libnl.so.1.1)
==3800== 
==3800== 90 (40 direct, 50 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 367 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x43426D: virAlloc (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x307E466201: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E468F30: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E465C2E: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E46832B: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x45FC29: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x440BEF: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x441209: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x307E47D14F: virStateInitialize (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x41D140: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x327861EC5C: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800== 
==3800== 120 bytes in 3 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 372 of 481
==3800==    at 0x4A04481: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:418)
==3800==    by 0x43426D: virAlloc (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x307E44E962: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E44F41D: virDomainDefParseNode (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E44F525: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x307E44F79C: virDomainLoadAllConfigs (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x4412D1: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x307E47D14F: virStateInitialize (in /usr/lib64/libvirt.so.0.8.1)
==3800==    by 0x41D140: ??? (in /usr/sbin/libvirtd)
==3800==    by 0x327861EC5C: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==3800== 
==3800== LEAK SUMMARY:
==3800==    definitely lost: 160 bytes in 4 blocks
==3800==    indirectly lost: 50 bytes in 3 blocks
==3800==      possibly lost: 349 bytes in 18 blocks
==3800==    still reachable: 458,716 bytes in 6,719 blocks
==3800==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3800== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
==3800== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes
==3800== 
==3800== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==3800== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from
==3800== ERROR SUMMARY: 21 errors from 21 contexts (suppressed: 29 from 9)
^C
3.On another terminal
run ps -ef|grep 3800,the pid doesn't exist.

So I wanna know anything wrong with my steps?
Comment 6 Eric Blake 2011-01-27 20:28:48 UTC 
What version of libselinux do you have installed?  The leak is only present if you have an older version (such as libselinux-2.0.94-2.el6.x86_64), since bug 658571 fixed libselinux to avoid the leak.  If that's the case, you may have to resort to stap tracing to see which functions get called, rather than relying on valgrind.
Comment 7 koka xiong 2011-01-28 03:18:58 UTC 
Hi,Eric Blake,I am wondering this package has problem,
I have verified with bug 658657,and the matchpathcon leak isn't detected.
I am using the same env with bug 658657 to verify this bug,with libselinux-2.0.94-2.el6.x86_64, but with package libvirt-0.8.1-27.el6_0.3,
it all show:
32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 1,059 of 2,952
==15881==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==15881==    by 0x38360FF38F: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x383610159C: xmlPatterncompile (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x383607FE3B: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x3836086D9D: xmlXPathCtxtCompile (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0F9F7: xsltXPathCompile (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E25A3F: xsltStylePreCompute (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0BDF2: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E16A: xsltParseStylesheetProcess (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E570: xsltParseStylesheetImportedDoc (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E602: xsltParseStylesheetDoc (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E696: xsltParseStylesheetFile (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==
==15881== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 1,060 of 2,952
==15881==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==15881==    by 0x38360FF38F: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x3836101CDB: xmlPatterncompile (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x383607FE3B: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x3836086D9D: xmlXPathCtxtCompile (in /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2.7.6)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0F9F7: xsltXPathCompile (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E2586D: xsltStylePreCompute (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0BDF2: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E16A: xsltParseStylesheetProcess (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E570: xsltParseStylesheetImportedDoc (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E602: xsltParseStylesheetDoc (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==    by 0x3840E0E696: xsltParseStylesheetFile (in /usr/lib64/libxslt.so.1.1.26)
==15881==

Is it a problem?
with package libvirt-0.8.7-1.el6,No such problem.
Comment 8 Eric Blake 2011-01-28 03:33:51 UTC 
I'm not yet sure if the leak regarding xsltParseStylesheetFile is a regression, but if it is, it's unrelated to the point of this BZ of selabel_open.  I think you have verified this bug using the same means as for 658657, but that it should be cloned to another bug that ensures we didn't add some other memory leak.  You're missing some debuginfo (libxml2 in comment 7, and libvirt in comment 4) that makes the valgrind output less informative.  Also, the libnl leaks in comment 4 are a known issue (bug 620345), and not something that libvirt can fix or avoid.
Comment 9 koka xiong 2011-01-30 01:35:01 UTC 
Verified with 
Verified with selinux=enforcing state
libvirt-0.8.7-1.el6
libselinux-2.0.94-2.el6.x86_64
libnl-1.1-12.el6.x86_64
1.service libvirtd stop
2.valgrind --leak-check=full /usr/sbin/libvirtd 2>&1 | tee valgrind.out& pid=$1
3.virsh start guest
Look at the log
==15881== 34 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1,117 of 2,952
==15881==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==15881==    by 0x382D07FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==15881==    by 0x382E813DF6: selinux_raw_to_trans_context (in /lib64/libselinux.so.1)
==15881==    by 0x382E80D0CF: ??? (in /lib64/libselinux.so.1)
==15881==    by 0x382E80D18D: selabel_lookup (in /lib64/libselinux.so.1)
==15881==    by 0x4D0910C: SELinuxRestoreSecurityFileLabel (security_selinux.c:385)
==15881==    by 0x4D09699: SELinuxRestoreSecurityAllLabel (security_selinux.c:754)
==15881==    by 0x459773: qemuSecurityStackedRestoreSecurityAllLabel (qemu_security_stacked.c:257)
==15881==    by 0x43F405: qemudShutdownVMDaemon (qemu_driver.c:4342)
==15881==    by 0x455B11: qemudStartVMDaemon (qemu_driver.c:4265)
==15881==    by 0x458A36: qemudDomainObjStart (qemu_driver.c:7314)
==15881==    by 0x458F8F: qemudDomainStart (qemu_driver.c:7354)
==15881==
==15881== 34 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1,118 of 2,952
==15881==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==15881==    by 0x382D07FD51: strdup (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==15881==    by 0x382E813B8F: selinux_trans_to_raw_context (in /lib64/libselinux.so.1)
==15881==    by 0x382E813657: setfilecon (in /lib64/libselinux.so.1)
==15881==    by 0x4D08F2A: SELinuxSetFilecon (security_selinux.c:325)
==15881==    by 0x4D09125: SELinuxRestoreSecurityFileLabel (security_selinux.c:388)
==15881==    by 0x4D09699: SELinuxRestoreSecurityAllLabel (security_selinux.c:754)
==15881==    by 0x459773: qemuSecurityStackedRestoreSecurityAllLabel (qemu_security_stacked.c:257)
==15881==    by 0x43F405: qemudShutdownVMDaemon (qemu_driver.c:4342)
==15881==    by 0x455B11: qemudStartVMDaemon (qemu_driver.c:4265)
==15881==    by 0x458A36: qemudDomainObjStart (qemu_driver.c:7314)
==15881==    by 0x458F8F: qemudDomainStart (qemu_driver.c:7354)

No matchpathcon leak is detected.
So this bug is verified.
Comment 10 errata-xmlrpc 2011-04-14 16:19:35 UTC 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0446.html
Comment 11 Martin Prpič 2011-04-15 14:24:41 UTC 
    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
Starting and shutting down a domain led to a memory leak due to the use of a thread-unfriendly "matchpathcon" (which gets the default security context for the specified path) SELinux API. With this update, libvirt uses improved SELinux APIs and a memory leak no longer occurs.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.