On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:17:03PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >From 638341bdf3eaac824e36d265e134608279750049 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:10:58 +0900
> Subject: [PATCHv7 3/4] libvirt/qemu - check address confliction before addition.
>
> qemuDomainAttachDevicePersistent() calls qemuDomainAssignPCIAddresses()
> and virDomainDefAddImplicitControllers() at the end of its call.
>
> But PCI/Drive address confliction checks are
> PCI - confliction will be found but error report is not verbose.
> Drive - never done.
>
> For example, you can add following (unusual) 2 devices without errors.
>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/test3.img'/>
> <target dev="sdx" bus='scsi'/>
> <address type='drive' controller='0' bus='0' unit='0'/>
> </disk>
>
> <disk type='file' device='disk'>
> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/>
> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/test3.img'/>
> <target dev="sdy" bus='scsi'/>
> <address type='drive' controller='0' bus='0' unit='0'/>
> </disk>
>
> It's better to check drive address confliction before addition.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> src/conf/domain_conf.h | 2 +
> src/libvirt_private.syms | 1 +
> src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 9 +++++++
> 4 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index 3e3f342..4a54f62 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -1287,6 +1287,65 @@ void virDomainDefClearDeviceAliases(virDomainDefPtr def)
> virDomainDeviceInfoIterate(def, virDomainDeviceInfoClearAlias, NULL);
> }
>
> +static int virDomainDeviceAddressMatch(virDomainDefPtr def ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> + virDomainDeviceInfoPtr info,
> + void *opaque)
> +{
> + virDomainDeviceInfoPtr checked = opaque;
> + /* skip to check confliction of alias */
> + if (info->type != checked->type)
> + return 0;
> + if (info->alias && checked->alias && strcmp(info->alias, checked->alias))
!STREQ instead of strcmp
> + return -1;
> + if (!memcmp(&info->addr, &checked->addr, sizeof(info->addr)))
Is it safe to memcmp an union like this? In the cases members of an
union are of different sizes, and we intent to memcmp an union member
that has a smaller size than the other members, then data in space
not used by the union member to be compared is also compared. This is
not a desired result.
> + return -1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
--
Thanks,
Hu Tao
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list