John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> [2018-01-04, 03:56PM -0500]:
> On 12/19/2017 05:08 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/util/virsysinfo.c b/src/util/virsysinfo.c
> > index ab81b1f7..0c2267e3 100644
> > --- a/src/util/virsysinfo.c
> > +++ b/src/util/virsysinfo.c
> > @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ virSysinfoParseS390Processor(const char *base, virSysinfoDefPtr ret)
> > char *tmp_base;
> > char *manufacturer = NULL;
> > char *procline = NULL;
> > + char *ncpu = NULL;
> > int result = -1;
> > virSysinfoProcessorDefPtr processor;
> >
> > @@ -524,11 +525,41 @@ virSysinfoParseS390Processor(const char *base, virSysinfoDefPtr ret)
> >
> > VIR_FREE(procline);
> > }
> > +
> > + /* now, for each processor found, extract the frequency information */
> > + tmp_base = (char *) base;
> > +
> > + while ((tmp_base = strstr(tmp_base, "cpu number")) &&
> > + (tmp_base = virSysinfoParseS390Line(tmp_base, "cpu number", &ncpu))) {
> > + unsigned int n;
> > + char *mhz = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (virStrToLong_ui(ncpu, NULL, 10, &n) < 0 || n >= ret->nprocessor)
> > + goto cleanup;
>
> Should these be split? Reason I ask is if n >= ret->nprocessor, then
> going to cleanup results in returning a failure. That leads to an
> eventual generic command failed for some reason. Of course that reason
> shouldn't be possible, but since this is a CYA exercise, the check
> should have a specific error message - similar to what one would get if
> other calls failed...
I don't quite follow. You want an explicit error message here if n >=
ret->nprocessor? Right now, for this call sequence there is no error
reporting at all. This just fills the respective driver->hostsysinfo
struct and sets this to NULL in case of an error. Later on, when the
hostsysinfo is used and not available, an error is generated.
> > +
> > + if (!(tmp_base = strstr(tmp_base, "cpu MHz dynamic")) ||
> > + !virSysinfoParseS390Line(tmp_base, "cpu MHz dynamic", &mhz) ||
> > + !mhz)
>
> Other virSysinfoParseS390Line callers never check whether the returned
> 4th argument is NULL - should they? or is the !mhz check here (and the
> next one) superfluous? I note the @ncpu one above doesn't have it
> either. In the long run, who cares if it's NULL?
Yes, combined with the strstr call I guess this check is not necessary.
I can remove it.
>
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + ret->processor[n].processor_external_clock = mhz;
> > +
> > + if (!(tmp_base = strstr(tmp_base, "cpu MHz static")) ||
> > + !virSysinfoParseS390Line(tmp_base, "cpu MHz static", &mhz) ||
> > + !mhz)
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + ret->processor[n].processor_max_speed = mhz;
>
>
> FWIW,
> you could remove @mhz and replace with a "virSysinfoProcessorDefPtr
> processor;" definition followed by an appropriately placed "processsor =
> &ret->processor[n];", and then and assign directly to
> &processor->{external_clock|processor_max_speed}
True, but that would probably make the parsing line harder to read. I'll
see if I can find some improvements.
>
> John
>
>
> > +
> > + VIR_FREE(ncpu);
> > + }
> > +
> > result = 0;
> >
> > cleanup:
> > VIR_FREE(manufacturer);
> > VIR_FREE(procline);
> > + VIR_FREE(ncpu);
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> >
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
