On 09/26/2017 05:38 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 09/12/2017 04:29 PM, John Ferlan wrote: >> >> >> On 09/05/2017 07:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447169 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 4 +- >>> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.h | 3 ++ >>> tests/qemuhotplugtest.c | 7 ++- >>> .../qemuhotplug-watchdog-full.xml | 3 ++ >>> 5 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 tests/qemuhotplugtestdevices/qemuhotplug-watchdog-full.xml >>> >>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c >>> index 626148dba..4c636b956 100644 >>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c >>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c >>> @@ -7692,12 +7692,14 @@ qemuDomainDetachDeviceLive(virDomainObjPtr vm, >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_SHMEM: >>> ret = qemuDomainDetachShmemDevice(driver, vm, dev->data.shmem); >>> break; >>> + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_WATCHDOG: >>> + ret = qemuDomainDetachWatchdog(driver, vm, dev->data.watchdog); >>> + break; >>> >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_FS: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_INPUT: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_SOUND: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_VIDEO: >>> - case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_WATCHDOG: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_GRAPHICS: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_HUB: >>> case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_SMARTCARD: >>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c >>> index 989146eb9..44472ce9f 100644 >>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c >>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c >>> @@ -4360,6 +4360,25 @@ qemuDomainRemoveShmemDevice(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, >>> } >>> >>> >>> +static int >>> +qemuDomainRemoveWatchdog(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, >>> + virDomainObjPtr vm, >>> + virDomainWatchdogDefPtr watchdog) >>> +{ >>> + virObjectEventPtr event = NULL; >>> + >>> + VIR_DEBUG("Removing watchdog %s from domain %p %s", >> >> Is "Removing watchdog watchdog0 from ..." a bit superfluous? >> >> Perhaps just "Removing '%s' from ..." >> >>> + watchdog->info.alias, vm, vm->def->name); >>> + >> >> This would/could be the place for the virDomainAuditWatchdog for >> "detach" too. >> >>> + event = virDomainEventDeviceRemovedNewFromObj(vm, watchdog->info.alias); >>> + qemuDomainEventQueue(driver, event); >>> + qemuDomainReleaseDeviceAddress(vm, &watchdog->info, NULL); >>> + virDomainWatchdogDefFree(vm->def->watchdog); >>> + vm->def->watchdog = NULL; >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> + >>> int >>> qemuDomainRemoveDevice(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, >>> virDomainObjPtr vm, >>> @@ -5076,6 +5095,48 @@ qemuDomainDetachShmemDevice(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, >>> } >>> >>> >>> +int >>> +qemuDomainDetachWatchdog(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, >>> + virDomainObjPtr vm, >>> + virDomainWatchdogDefPtr dev) >>> +{ >>> + int ret = -1; >>> + virDomainWatchdogDefPtr watchdog; >> >> Why not watchdog = vm->def->watchdog; here? >> >>> + qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv = vm->privateData; >>> + >>> + /* While domains can have up to one watchdog, the one supplied by user >> >> s/by/by the/ >> >>> + * doesn't necessarily match the one domain has. Refuse to detach in such >>> + * case. */ >>> + if (!(vm->def->watchdog && >>> + STREQ_NULLABLE(dev->info.alias, >>> + vm->def->watchdog->info.alias))) { >> >> if (!watchdog || STRNEQ_NULLABLE(dev->info.alias, watchdog->info.alias)) >> >> Trying to think why NULLABLE would be necessary... So it seems it's >> required that that input XML has the alias - something not quite right >> with that... > > Is that so? We match devices based on their alias in a lot of places. > Users are expected to pass the full device XML anyway. So it's up to us > how we pick the right device to be detached. For instance, when > detaching a vNIC we match MAC addresses and ignore the rest, since MAC > identifies the device uniquely. So for instance, if the detach XML > provided by user has <bandwidth/> set but the one in domain doesn't have > it, we detach the device anyway. One can argue this is a buggy > behaviour. But I just don't think we should care. There's a line we have > to draw between protecting users from themselves and too complex and > mostly useless code. So we've documented that users are supposed to pass > the device XML as is in the domain XML. > Can the alias be user supplied and not be overwritten on attach? IOW: If someone supplies watchdog5 on hot plug, would supplying the same XML work on hot unplug? Typically I pass/use the same XML for my disk/hostdev hot plug/unplug. Some of those aliases could be tricky unless of course someone's looked at the process arguments. And of course I now see the NULLABLE is being used because even the input XML doesn't require it, you're checking that it is provided and using that as the sole determination of matching the input XML against what's been loaded into QEMU either via cold or hot plug. >> >> I would think for unplug there'd be something that would compare the >> input "model" and "action" values to whatever watchdog is currently >> present and if they don't match, then fail. Not sure why comparing the >> alias is "right". It's not something we require of other unplugs, is it? > > Sort of. For instance when detaching disks we only care about the > target. And for a lot of other devices we require alias too. > But we also seem to make use of whatever alias exists for the device in many places... I looked at a few and I couldn't find a case where the alias was required on input for the detach. Yes it's checked, but there's various ways of ensuring it's either present in whatever was used for the unplug XML or just building up the alias given other matching criteria has been met. John >> We just need to make sure the same "something" is being removed. Since >> the alias is essentially static for the single available watchdog >> device, then as long as the model and action are the same, we can >> remove; otherwise, someone has to fix the input XML to have the matching >> model and action. > > Okay, I'll add these two checks. > > Michal > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
