On 06/27/2013 12:11 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 27.06.2013 11:56, Ján Tomko wrote: >> On 06/27/2013 09:54 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>> On 21.06.2013 19:30, Ján Tomko wrote: >>>> If networkUnplugBandwidth is called on a network which has >>>> no bandwidth defined, print a warning instead of crashing. >>>> >>>> This can happen when destroying a domain with bandwith if >>>> bandwidth was removed from the network after the domain was >>>> started. >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975359 >>>> --- >>>> src/network/bridge_driver.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>> >>> So the problem is, if user starts a domain with interface which has >>> @floor set. The @floor requires a bandwidth to be set on the network the >>> interface is to be plugged into. Then he destroys the network, clear >>> <bandwidth/> from the network definition and starts the network again. I >>> think this is the place which should be fixed. We should deny removing >>> <bandwidth/> in case there's at least one interface attached with >>> @floor. Similarly, we refuse to start domain if the corresponding >>> network doesn't have any <bandwidth/> configured. >> >> We refuse to start domains when the network isn't active too, even if they >> don't have bandwidth, yet we allow the networks to be shut down afterwards. >> >> I don't think we want to forbid shutting networks with bandwidth down (which >> essentially removes all the bandwidth from it). >> >> Jan > > Right. Good point, if user wants to shoot himself in the foot, we > shouldn't disallow him to do that (there's just too much of cases which > we would have to check). Libvirt's not foolproof. What we should do - or > rather not do is SIGSEGV-ing if user pull the trigger. > > ACK then > Thanks, pushed now. Jan -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list