On 04/28/2013 06:12 AM, Alex Jia wrote:
GDB backtrace:
Breakpoint 1, virPCIGetVirtualFunctionIndex (pf_sysfs_device_link=0x7fc04400f470
"/sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:03:00.1", vf_sysfs_device_link=<optimized out>,
vf_index=vf_index@entry=0x7fc06897b8f4)
at util/virpci.c:2107
2107 if (virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual(vf_bdf, virt_fns[i])) {
(gdb) p *vf_bdf
$1 = {domain = 0, bus = 3, slot = 16, function = 1}
(gdb) l
2102 "virtual_functions"), pf_sysfs_device_link);
2103 goto out;
2104 }
2105
2106 for (i = 0; i < num_virt_fns; i++) {
2107 if (virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual(vf_bdf, virt_fns[i])) {
2108 *vf_index = i;
2109 ret = 0;
2110 break;
2111 }
(gdb) p num_virt_fns
$46 = 2
(gdb) p virt_fns[0]
$48 = (virPCIDeviceAddressPtr) 0x0
(gdb) s
virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual (bdf2=0x0, bdf1=0x7fc04400f330) at util/virpci.c:1844
1844 (bdf1->slot == bdf2->slot) &&
(gdb) s
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
RHBZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957416
Signed-off-by: Alex Jia <ajia(a)redhat.com>
---
src/util/virpci.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/util/virpci.c b/src/util/virpci.c
index 97bba74..dda044c 100644
--- a/src/util/virpci.c
+++ b/src/util/virpci.c
@@ -1897,7 +1897,8 @@ static bool
virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual(virPCIDeviceAddressPtr bdf1,
virPCIDeviceAddressPtr bdf2)
{
- return ((bdf1->domain == bdf2->domain) &&
+ return (bdf1 && bdf2 &&
+ (bdf1->domain == bdf2->domain) &&
(bdf1->bus == bdf2->bus) &&
(bdf1->slot == bdf2->slot) &&
(bdf1->function == bdf2->function));
NACK.
This patch only fixes the symptom (not the root cause), and only in the
case of starting a domain with an <interface type='hostdev'. It doesn't
fix the second crash described in the BZ when running virsh
nodedev-dumpxml - the code path of that doesn't ever get to
virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual() (but *does* call the function that actually
has the bug).
The root cause of these crashes was a typo introduced just before the
release of 1.0.4. I found that problem and pushed the correct patch on
April 9:
http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=9579b6bc209b46a0f079b214...
(Beyond that, I don't like the idea of ignoring a NULL pointer -
virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual should always be passed non-NULL pointers,
and its only current caller does guarantee that (except for when it has
a bug). If we want virPCIDeviceAddressIsEqual to do something with NULL
pointers, it should be logging an error and failing, but that would
complicate the interface to the function beyond just returning a
true/false (it would have to be tri-state, and the caller would need to
check all three possibilities). I think in this case it's better for the
caller to make sure the pointers it sends are valid.)