Bug 690414 - memory leak in microcode_ctl.patch
Summary: memory leak in microcode_ctl.patch
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: microcode_ctl
Version: 5.8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Anton Arapov
QA Contact: Evan McNabb
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 684009
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-03-24 09:54 UTC by Anton Arapov
Modified: 2014-06-18 08:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: microcode_ctl-1.17-1.56.el5
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 684009
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-02-21 05:41:16 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
microcode_ctl.patch from RHEL-6 with a memleak fix included (2.84 KB, patch)
2011-03-24 09:54 UTC, Anton Arapov
no flags Details | Diff


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2012:0189 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE microcode_ctl bug fix and enhancement update 2012-02-20 14:54:31 UTC

Comment 1 Anton Arapov 2011-03-24 09:54:54 UTC
Created attachment 487270 [details]
microcode_ctl.patch from RHEL-6 with a memleak fix included

Comment 3 Evan McNabb 2011-12-05 20:50:46 UTC
For the record, this patch may be the cause of BZ 760323.

Comment 4 Kamil Dudka 2011-12-05 21:23:42 UTC
Yes, the patch seems to inherit some unintended changes from the RHEL-6 one.  I have fixed the patch descriptions on both of them in order to prevent a confusion like this in the future.  Note there was no such problem in the original patch I provided for RHEL-6.

Comment 5 Evan McNabb 2011-12-05 21:30:55 UTC
Thanks Kamil. I agree, RHEL6 worked correctly in my testing too.

Comment 6 Evan McNabb 2011-12-14 15:16:52 UTC
Confirmed leak doesn't exist in latest build (microcode_ctl-1.17-1.56.el5):

# uname -a
Linux intel-sugarbay-dh-01.rhts.eng.rdu.redhat.com 2.6.18-300.el5 #1 SMP Thu Dec 1 13:48:30 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
# modprobe microcode

# rpm -q microcode_ctl
microcode_ctl-1.17-1.52.el5
# valgrind /sbin/microcode_ctl -u
==4134== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==4134== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==4134== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==4134== Command: /sbin/microcode_ctl -u
==4134== 
/sbin/microcode_ctl: writing microcode (length: 430080)
/sbin/microcode_ctl: microcode successfuly written to /dev/cpu/microcode
==4134== 
==4134== HEAP SUMMARY:
==4134==     in use at exit: 8,000,000 bytes in 1 blocks
==4134==   total heap usage: 2 allocs, 1 frees, 8,000,568 bytes allocated
==4134== 
==4134== LEAK SUMMARY:
==4134==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==4134==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==4134==      possibly lost: 8,000,000 bytes in 1 blocks
==4134==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==4134==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==4134== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==4134== 
==4134== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==4134== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)


# rpm -q microcode_ctlmicrocode_ctl-1.17-1.56.el5
# valgrind /sbin/microcode_ctl -u
==4152== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==4152== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==4152== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==4152== Command: /sbin/microcode_ctl -u
==4152== 
/sbin/microcode_ctl: writing microcode (length: 460800)
/sbin/microcode_ctl: microcode successfuly written to /dev/cpu/microcode
==4152== 
==4152== HEAP SUMMARY:
==4152==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==4152==   total heap usage: 2 allocs, 2 frees, 8,000,568 bytes allocated
==4152== 
==4152== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==4152== 
==4152== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==4152== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2012-02-21 05:41:16 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0189.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.