On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:47:29PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 2/23/22 11:01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:47:20AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> >> On 2/23/22 10:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik
On 2/23/22 11:01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:47:20AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 10:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:47:20AM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 2/23/22 10:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
> >> domain NVRAM path even though it might have
On 2/23/22 10:33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
>> domain NVRAM path even though it might have been parsed earlier
>> from domain XML. The way we do that leads to a
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
> domain NVRAM path even though it might have been parsed earlier
> from domain XML. The way we do that leads to a memleak:
>
> 43 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:16:57 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
> domain NVRAM path even though it might have been parsed earlier
> from domain XML. The way we do that leads to a memleak:
>
> 43 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
After v8.0.0-466-g08101bde5d we unconditionally regenerate per
domain NVRAM path even though it might have been parsed earlier
from domain XML. The way we do that leads to a memleak:
43 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 330 of 682
at 0x483F7E5: malloc