Bug 5142 - probable memory leak in ldb
Summary: probable memory leak in ldb
Alias: None
Product: Samba 4.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Other (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: x86 Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrew Bartlett
QA Contact: Andrew Bartlett
: 5130 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2007-12-14 08:52 UTC by Jason Tarbet
Modified: 2008-03-13 14:50 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jason Tarbet 2007-12-14 08:52:11 UTC
On provision I have received this message as described below.

first recorded last time I rebuilt but I'm not sure if it's the first time it's happened.
WARNING: probable memory leak in ldb /usr/local/samba/private/sam.ldb - 37331 blocks (startup 642) 823376 bytes
and then from this morning's rebuild of 

WARNING: probable memory leak in ldb /usr/local/samba/private/sam.ldb - 36226 blocks (startup 608) 796940 bytes
Comment 1 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-01-01 13:59:31 UTC
*** Bug 5130 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-01-07 02:24:20 UTC
Have you checked this, Andrew?
Comment 3 Jelmer Vernooij 2008-01-07 13:07:29 UTC
Can you still reproduce this?
Comment 4 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-01-07 16:45:50 UTC
No, the problem persists!
Comment 5 Andrew Bartlett 2008-01-08 23:59:34 UTC
So, this is a non-problem.  The only question remains:

 - Add another message saying 'please ignore the next warning'
 - Remove the warning (and therefore tracing of memory leaks on ldb in general)
 - Ignore the problem

The problem occurs because the schema is loaded onto the database (from ldif) *after* the ldb connects, so it appears incorrectly to be a leak. 
Comment 6 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-01-22 16:25:34 UTC
What would you propose for solution?
Maybe the right for now is the first one?
Comment 7 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-03-13 13:04:00 UTC
That one should be conclused. With the new python provisioning we haven't this issue anymore. I'd close this one.
Comment 8 Jelmer Vernooij 2008-03-13 14:50:39 UTC
Makes sense, thanks Matthias.