On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 19:42:36 +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:11 PM +0200, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The new function is called qemuProcessRefreshCPU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > index 0cb023095b..5ed6b68eb8 100644
> > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > @@ -6876,6 +6876,47 @@ qemuProcessRefreshDisks(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> > }
> >
> >
> > +static int
> > +qemuProcessRefreshCPU(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> > + virDomainObjPtr vm)
> > +{
> > + virCapsPtr caps = virQEMUDriverGetCapabilities(driver, false);
> > + virCPUDefPtr host = NULL;
> > + int ret = -1;
> > +
> > + if (!virQEMUCapsGuestIsNative(caps->host.arch, vm->def->os.arch) ||
> > + !caps->host.cpu ||
> > + !vm->def->cpu)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (!caps)
> > + goto cleanup;
>
> That's somehow weird... We access 'caps->host.arch'/ 'caps->host.cpu'
> and after that we're checking for a null pointer?!
Oops, yes. Consider the following patch squashed in:
diff --git i/src/qemu/qemu_process.c w/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
index 5ed6b68eb8..8c33af28dd 100644
--- i/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
+++ w/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
@@ -6884,14 +6884,14 @@ qemuProcessRefreshCPU(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
virCPUDefPtr host = NULL;
int ret = -1;
+ if (!caps)
+ return -1;
+
if (!virQEMUCapsGuestIsNative(caps->host.arch, vm->def->os.arch) ||
!caps->host.cpu ||
!vm->def->cpu)
return 0;
- if (!caps)
- goto cleanup;
-
/* If the domain with a host-model CPU was started by an old libvirt
* (< 2.3) which didn't replace the CPU with a custom one, let's do it now
* since the rest of our code does not really expect a host-model CPU in a
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
