On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 18:24:59 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I used the same check as in the online path, but you are right, it does
not make much sense. I'll drop this check.
> IDC either way, but since there was no bz attached to this patch, I was
> just curious why the check.
Bugs are there even when nobody reports them :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
