s4: Valgrind output

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer mdw at samba.org
Sun Oct 24 10:15:11 MDT 2010


Andrew,

are you able to explain me this? Are these only false positives?

Greets,
Matthias

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> Hi s4 developers,
>
> occasionally I run valgrind to check our memory leak status. This time 
> I've detected some possibly lost errors where I've not much idea what 
> the real cause is about. Is it just an internal talloc issue about 
> which we don't care?
>
> Here some of them:
>> ==17566== 168,846 bytes in 1,737 blocks are possibly lost in loss 
>> record 1,430 of 1,431
>> ==17566==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==17566==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==17566==    by 0x7313AC0: __talloc_strlendup (talloc.c:1573)
>> ==17566==    by 0x7313BB9: talloc_strndup (talloc.c:1598)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A77715: ltdb_unpack_data (ldb_pack.c:243)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A781DE: ltdb_search_dn1 (ldb_search.c:267)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A7BFD5: ltdb_attributes_load (ldb_cache.c:129)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A7C895: ltdb_cache_load (ldb_cache.c:380)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A76F07: ltdb_connect (ldb_tdb.c:1440)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A5902F: ldb_connect_backend (ldb_modules.c:252)
>> ==17566==    by 0xB00AFC6: new_partition_from_dn (partition_init.c:252)
>> ==17566==    by 0xB00BB0F: partition_reload_if_required 
>> (partition_init.c:491)
>> ==17566==
>> ==17566== 441,504 bytes in 1,314 blocks are possibly lost in loss 
>> record 1,431 of 1,431
>> ==17566==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==17566==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==17566==    by 0x73119EE: _talloc_named_const (talloc.c:516)
>> ==17566==    by 0x7313A0F: _talloc_zero (talloc.c:1546)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5757E47: dsdb_attribute_from_ldb (schema_init.c:555)
>> ==17566==    by 0x575AE6D: dsdb_schema_from_ldb_results 
>> (schema_init.c:766)
>> ==17566==    by 0xC710AAB: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:219)
>> ==17566==    by 0xC710D93: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:308)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==17566==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>> ==17566==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==17566== 32,640 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,407 of 1,431
>> ==17566==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==17566==    by 0x3CB3A1F920: __gconv_open (in /lib64/libc-2.11.2.so)
>> ==17566==    by 0x3CB3A1F2C1: iconv_open (in /lib64/libc-2.11.2.so)
>> ==17566==    by 0x685A8B5: smb_iconv_open_ex (iconv.c:233)
>> ==17566==    by 0x685AAA0: smb_iconv_open (iconv.c:288)
>> ==17566==    by 0x6400C6D: lpcfg_update (loadparm.c:2527)
>> ==17566==    by 0x6400E44: lpcfg_load (loadparm.c:2579)
>> ==17566==    by 0x6400CD8: lpcfg_load_default (loadparm.c:2546)
>> ==17566==    by 0x40305A: popt_samba_callback (popt_common.c:70)
>> ==17566==    by 0x3CC3601D11: ??? (in /lib64/libpopt.so.0.0.0)
>> ==17566==    by 0x3CC3601CD5: ??? (in /lib64/libpopt.so.0.0.0)
>> ==17566==    by 0x3CC36033AE: poptGetNextOpt (in 
>> /lib64/libpopt.so.0.0.0)
>> ==26963== 136,656 bytes in 1,314 blocks are possibly lost in loss 
>> record 1,428 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==26963==    by 0x73119EE: _talloc_named_const (talloc.c:516)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7312E4B: talloc_named_const (talloc.c:1100)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5757D4C: dsdb_schema_setup_ldb_schema_attribute 
>> (schema_init.c:428)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5758F50: dsdb_attribute_from_ldb (schema_init.c:633)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575AE6D: dsdb_schema_from_ldb_results 
>> (schema_init.c:766)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710A4B: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:219)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>> ==26963==
>> ==26963== 142,058 bytes in 1,467 blocks are possibly lost in loss 
>> record 1,429 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7313AC0: __talloc_strlendup (talloc.c:1573)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7313BB9: talloc_strndup (talloc.c:1598)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5759CCE: dsdb_class_from_ldb (schema_init.c:683)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575AF5D: dsdb_schema_from_ldb_results 
>> (schema_init.c:778)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710A4B: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:219)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963== 10,592 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,388 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==26963==    by 0x73119EE: _talloc_named_const (talloc.c:516)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731449A: _talloc_array (talloc.c:1857)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575BEC3: dsdb_setup_sorted_accessors 
>> (schema_set.c:326)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575C28D: dsdb_set_schema (schema_set.c:390)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710AE7: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:240)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963== 6,048 bytes in 6 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,375 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A0515D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731168F: __talloc (talloc.c:405)
>> ==26963==    by 0x73119EE: _talloc_named_const (talloc.c:516)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731449A: _talloc_array (talloc.c:1857)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A777F7: ltdb_unpack_data (ldb_pack.c:253)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A781DE: ltdb_search_dn1 (ldb_search.c:267)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A7C7BC: ltdb_cache_load (ldb_cache.c:362)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A76F07: ltdb_connect (ldb_tdb.c:1440)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5902F: ldb_connect_backend (ldb_modules.c:252)
>> ==26963==    by 0xB00AFC6: new_partition_from_dn (partition_init.c:252)
>> ==26963==    by 0xB00BB0F: partition_reload_if_required 
>> (partition_init.c:491)
>> ==26963==    by 0xB00C8D7: partition_init (partition_init.c:826)
>> ==26963==
>> ==26963== 6,528 bytes in 51 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,377 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A05255: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:476)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7313122: _talloc_realloc (talloc.c:1215)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731454B: _talloc_realloc_array (talloc.c:1879)
>> ==26963==    by 0x6864B22: str_list_append_const (util_strlist.c:438)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5766CE1: schema_subclasses_recurse 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:135)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5766CCF: schema_subclasses_recurse 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:135)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5766EEE: schema_create_subclasses 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:184)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5767614: schema_fill_constructed 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:334)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575C2AA: dsdb_set_schema (schema_set.c:395)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710AE7: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:240)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963== 2,784 bytes in 29 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,361 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A05255: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:476)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7313122: _talloc_realloc (talloc.c:1215)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731454B: _talloc_realloc_array (talloc.c:1879)
>> ==26963==    by 0x6864BDC: str_list_add_const (util_strlist.c:458)
>> ==26963==    by 0x576706D: schema_fill_possible_inferiors 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:214)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5767646: schema_fill_constructed 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:340)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575C2AA: dsdb_set_schema (schema_set.c:395)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710AE7: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:240)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>> ==26963==
>> ==26963== 2,880 bytes in 30 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 
>> 1,362 of 1,433
>> ==26963==    at 0x4A05255: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:476)
>> ==26963==    by 0x7313122: _talloc_realloc (talloc.c:1215)
>> ==26963==    by 0x731454B: _talloc_realloc_array (talloc.c:1879)
>> ==26963==    by 0x6864BDC: str_list_add_const (util_strlist.c:458)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5767167: schema_fill_system_possible_inferiors 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:234)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5767659: schema_fill_constructed 
>> (schema_inferiors.c:341)
>> ==26963==    by 0x575C2AA: dsdb_set_schema (schema_set.c:395)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710AE7: dsdb_schema_from_db (schema_load.c:240)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC710CE3: schema_load_init (schema_load.c:302)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A595AD: ldb_init_module_chain (ldb_modules.c:388)
>> ==26963==    by 0x5A5A173: ldb_next_init (ldb_modules.c:616)
>> ==26963==    by 0xC92CD35: operational_init (operational.c:846)
>
>



More information about the samba-technical mailing list