On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:26:27AM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
Providing XML such as:
<device>
<name>vhba</name>
<capability type='scsi_host'>
<capability type='fc_host'>
</capability>
</capability>
</device>
would crash libvirt because the '<parent>' isn't a required field, but
for vHBA creation it's expected (day 1 issue - see commit id '81d0ffbc').
The nodedev.rng added in commit id '2c22a68c' has this as an optional field.
NB: On normal udev discovery if a parent field wasn't found, it would be
set to "computer" by udevSetParent, so this is a somewhat unique path.
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/conf/node_device_conf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
index 1cd0baf..bf5b22f 100644
--- a/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/node_device_conf.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ virNodeDeviceObjPtr virNodeDeviceFindByName(virNodeDeviceObjListPtr devs,
for (i = 0; i < devs->count; i++) {
virNodeDeviceObjLock(devs->objs[i]);
- if (STREQ(devs->objs[i]->def->name, name))
+ if (STREQ_NULLABLE(devs->objs[i]->def->name, name))
Is this needed after patch 3/11? I presume we do not store objects with NULL names in devs. In that case the callers should avoid calling this with NULL name - what is the point of iterating over the array in that case? Jan
return devs->objs[i];
virNodeDeviceObjUnlock(devs->objs[i]);
}
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
