On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 14:36 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 08:19:40PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 17:03 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> [...]
> > +++ b/src/remote/remote_daemon_dispatch.c
> > @@ -4210,14 +4128,13 @@
remoteDispatchConnectDomainEventRegister(virNetServerPtr server ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
> > daemonClientEventCallbackPtr ref;
> > struct daemonClientPrivate *priv =
> > virNetServerClientGetPrivateData(client);
> > -
> > - if (!priv->conn) {
> > - virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
_("connection not open"));
> > - goto cleanup;
> > - }
> > + virConnectPtr conn = remoteGetHypervisorConn(client);
> >
> > virMutexLock(&priv->lock);
> >
> > + if (!conn)
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
>
> Shouldn't this be *before* the virMutexLock() call? As far as I can
> tell, that would match the existing behavior...
Looking at this I think the original code is broken. The "cleanup:"
label calls virMutexUnlock(). So the original code was jumping to
the cleanup label with an unlocked mutex and then unlocking it again.
Yeah, I thought the same but I'm not too familiar with this part of
libvirt. If the existing code is wrong, then I think we should have
a preparatory patch addressing the issue and only replace direct
struct member access with use of the newly-introduced helper function
in this one. What do you think?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization