Chris Lalancette wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 04:40 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:45:16PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> I ran clang on the very latest and it spotted this problem:
>>>> >From qemu_driver.c, around line 11100,
>>>>
>>>> else {
>>>> /* qemu is a little funny with running guests and the restoration
>>>> * of snapshots. If the snapshot was taken online,
>>>> * then after a "loadvm" monitor command, the VM is set running
>>>> * again. If the snapshot was taken offline, then after a "loadvm"
>>>> * monitor command the VM is left paused. Unpausing it leads to
>>>> * the memory state *before* the loadvm with the disk *after* the
>>>> * loadvm, which obviously is bound to corrupt something.
>>>> * Therefore we destroy the domain and set it to "off" in this case.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> if (virDomainObjIsActive(vm)) {
>>>> qemudShutdownVMDaemon(driver, vm);
>>>> event = virDomainEventNewFromObj(vm,
>>>> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED,
>>>> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED_FROM_SNAPSHOT);
>>>> if (!vm->persistent) {
>>>> if (qemuDomainObjEndJob(vm) > 0)
>>>> virDomainRemoveInactive(&driver->domains, vm);
>>>> vm = NULL;
>>>
>>> This needs to add 'goto endjob' or possibly 'goto cleanup'
>>
>> No point in endjob, since it does nothing when vm == NULL.
>>
>> Here's a tentative patch for that and another, similar problem
>> (haven't even compiled it or run it through clang, but have to run).
>> Will follow up tomorrow.
>
> Yeah, this looks reasonable and is what I was going to submit. It
> would be good to give a test first, though.
Can any of you easily test it?
I can't right now.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list