On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:58:28PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> While generating seclabels, we check the seclabel stack if required
>> driver is in the stack. If not, an error is returned. However, it is
>> possible for a seclabel to not have any model set (happens with LXC
>> domains that have just <seclabel type='none'>). If that's the case,
>> we should just skip the iteration instead of calling STREQ(NULL, ...)
>> and SIGSEGV-ing subsequently.
>> ---
>> src/security/security_manager.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/security/security_manager.c b/src/security/security_manager.c
>> index 6946637..411a909 100644
>> --- a/src/security/security_manager.c
>> +++ b/src/security/security_manager.c
>> @@ -436,6 +436,9 @@ int virSecurityManagerGenLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr,
>>
>> virObjectLock(mgr);
>> for (i = 0; i < vm->nseclabels; i++) {
>> + if (!vm->seclabels[i]->model)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> for (j = 0; sec_managers[j]; j++)
>> if (STREQ(vm->seclabels[i]->model, sec_managers[j]->drv->name))
>> break;
>
> ACK to this one too. Even though we can fix the LXC driver in your
> first patch, adding this second patch is useful crash protection.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
> |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
> |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
> |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
>
Ok to push this into v1.1.0-maint as this fixes a crasher for users
with this configuration? Should we also push the 1/2 patch?
--
Doug Goldstein
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list