Am 03.06.2014 um 17:43 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben: > The Tuesday 03 Jun 2014 à 15:10:56 (+0200), Kevin Wolf wrote : > > Some code in the block layer makes potentially huge allocations. Failure > > is not completely unexpected there, so avoid aborting qemu and handle > > out-of-memory situations gracefully. > > > > This patch addresses the allocations in the rbd block driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > > --- > > block/rbd.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c > > index 09af484..d0b2329 100644 > > --- a/block/rbd.c > > +++ b/block/rbd.c > > @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static BlockDriverAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState > > *bs, > > RBDAIOCmd cmd) > > { > > RBDAIOCB *acb; > > - RADOSCB *rcb; > > + RADOSCB *rcb = NULL; > > rbd_completion_t c; > > int64_t off, size; > > char *buf; > > @@ -637,7 +637,10 @@ static BlockDriverAIOCB > > *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs, > > if (cmd == RBD_AIO_DISCARD || cmd == RBD_AIO_FLUSH) { > > acb->bounce = NULL; > > } else { > > - acb->bounce = qemu_blockalign(bs, qiov->size); > > + acb->bounce = qemu_try_blockalign(bs, qiov->size); > I am under the impression that acb->bounce will be leaked in next goto failed.
Yes, I think you're right. That's a preexisting problem, though. I'll fix it in a patch independent from this series. Kevin