On 03/31/2017 07:52 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> Validate that users don't try to disable vcpu 0 and reject attempt to
> modify a vcpu to the state it is currently in.
> ---
> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c
> index 5488b1dd4..18a8df33a 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c
> @@ -5875,6 +5875,37 @@ qemuDomainFilterHotplugVcpuEntities(virDomainDefPtr def,
> }
>
>
> +static int
> +qemuDomainVcpuValidateConfig(virDomainDefPtr def,
> + virBitmapPtr map,
> + bool state)
> +{
> + virDomainVcpuDefPtr vcpu;
> + ssize_t next = -1;
> +
> + /* vcpu 0 can't be disabled */
> + if (!state && virBitmapIsBitSet(map, 0)) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG, "%s",
> + _("vCPU '0' must be enabled"));
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + /* make sure that all selected vcpus are in the correct state */
> + while ((next = virBitmapNextSetBit(map, next)) >= 0) {
> + if (!(vcpu = virDomainDefGetVcpu(def, next)))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (vcpu->online == state) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG,
> + _("vcpu '%zd' is already in requested state"), next);
> + return -1;
> + }
Does this really matter for this path? (config file). Wouldn't they just
be changing to what they already have and is that really a big deal.
IDC either way, but since there was no bz attached to this patch, I was
just curious why the check.
John
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> int
> qemuDomainSetVcpuInternal(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> virDomainObjPtr vm,
> @@ -5909,6 +5940,11 @@ qemuDomainSetVcpuInternal(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> }
> }
>
> + if (persistentDef) {
> + if (qemuDomainVcpuValidateConfig(persistentDef, map, state) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> if (livevcpus &&
> qemuDomainSetVcpusLive(driver, cfg, vm, livevcpus, state) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
