On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:18:54PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 13:11:10 +0000, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:07:13PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:59:00 +0000, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:53:47PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > > > The redetection was originally added in 43c01d3838 as a way to recover
> > > > > from libvirtd upgrade from the time when we didn't persist the qemu
> > > > > capabilities in the status XML. Also this the oldest supported qemu by
> > > > > more than two years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if somebody would have a running VM running at least qemu 1.5 with
> > > > > such an old libvirt we certainly wouldn't do the right thing by
> > > > > redetecting the capabilities and then trying to communicate with qemu.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now it will be the best to just stop considering this scenario any
> > > > > more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 7 -------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > > > > index 1b88c471f4..a76a8da841 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > > > > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
> > > > > @@ -8085,13 +8085,6 @@ qemuProcessReconnect(void *opaque)
> > > > > goto error;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > - /* If upgrading from old libvirtd we won't have found any
> > > > > - * caps in the domain status, so re-query them
> > > > > - */
> > > > > - if (!priv->qemuCaps &&
> > > > > - (qemuDomainUpdateQEMUCaps(obj, driver->qemuCapsCache) < 0))
> > > > > - goto error;
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we be making missing qemuCaps into a fatal error
> > > > when loading that VM.
> > >
> > > I thought about it for a bit. If we make it an error the VM will vanish
> > > after upgrade (and continue running). If we don't make an error it will
> > > not vanish and you'll be able to at least destroy it.
> > >
> > > Given that such situation is super-unlikely, I opted to remove it.
> > > Nobody will probably run into this situation and if yes then the VM will
> > > not vanish at least.
> > >
> > > I can add an error though, but to me it seems it's not worth.
> >
> > My concern is that pretty much all our later code will assume that
> > priv->qemuCaps is non-NULL. So by ignoring the error, the VM might
> > not vanish initially, but libvirtd may well crash shortly after.
>
> Good point.
>
> The caps are parsed in qemuDomainObjPrivateXMLParse
>
> How about we either change the condition to allocate priv->qemuCaps even
> if 0 elements are found in the XML so that priv->qemuCaps is not NULL
> (but empty).
This is fine, especially if we mark the VM tainted when we reconnect.
> Or potentially if we really want to make it an error then I'll add
> something like:
>
> if (n == 0) {
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> _("missing qemu capabilities in status XML"));
> goto error;
> }
>
> to the appropriate place in qemuDomainObjPrivateXMLParse
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
