On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:40:44AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:57 +0800
> Hu Tao <hutao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> ok.
>
>
> > > + 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.
>
> As far as I checked, it's zero cleared at allocation. Hmm, making this function
> bigger ?
Yes it is safe if zero-cleared. Not worth to make this function
complicated.
--
Thanks,
Hu Tao
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list