Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Plug memory leak on libvirt_virConnectOpenAuth. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): # rpm -q libvirt-python libvirt-python-0.9.8-1.el6.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. valgrind -v --leak-check=full virt-clone --print-xml Note: it can hit the issue although options are incomplete. Actual results: ==1801== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 25 of 3,270 ==1801== at 0x4A05FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) ==1801== by 0xCF1F60E: libvirt_virConnectOpenAuth (libvirt-override.c:1507) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEDE7F3: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:3794) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEDF99E: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:3880) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEDF99E: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:3880) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEDF99E: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:3880) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEDF99E: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:3880) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEE0466: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (ceval.c:3044) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEE0541: PyEval_EvalCode (ceval.c:545) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEFB88B: run_mod (pythonrun.c:1351) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEFB95F: PyRun_FileExFlags (pythonrun.c:1337) ==1801== by 0x3AFEEFCE4B: PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (pythonrun.c:941) Expected results: Fix memory leak. Additional info: Leak introduced in commit 5ab109f.
Patch for upstream: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-December/msg00811.html
In POST: commit 78496224f7b5dc7dc05a9a3ed2f3ac600b049150 Author: Alex Jia <ajia> Date: Mon Dec 19 16:12:19 2011 +0800 python: plug memory leak on libvirt_virConnectOpenAuth * Detected by valgrind. Leak introduced in commit 5ab109f. * python/libvirt-override.c: avoid memory leak on libvirt_virConnectOpenAuth. * How to reproduce? % valgrind -v --leak-check=full virt-clone --print-xml Note: it can hit the issue although options are incomplete.
# rpm -q libvirt libvirt-python libvirt-0.9.9-1.el6.x86_64 libvirt-python-0.9.9-1.el6.x86_64 # valgrind -v --leak-check=full virt-clone --print-xml ...... ==29537== LEAK SUMMARY: ==29537== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==29537== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==29537== possibly lost: 77,664 bytes in 164 blocks ==29537== still reachable: 4,883,446 bytes in 35,434 blocks ==29537== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ...... so, no definitely lost now.
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/RHSA-2012-0748.html