Re: [Libvir] [patch 9/9] Implement better error reporting
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 06:13:27PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 19:28 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > @@ -1226,6 +1332,7 @@ static int qemudDispatchPoll(struct qemu
> >
> > while (sock) {
> > struct qemud_socket *next = sock->next;
> > + /* FIXME: the daemon shouldn't exit on error here */
> > if (fds[fd].revents)
> > if (qemudDispatchServer(server, sock) < 0)
> > return -1;
>
> Yes & no. There are two reasons why qemuDispatchServer can fail. Either
> it can fail to set CLOSEXEC/NONBLOCK mode on the client socket, in
> which case we could simply drop the client & continue without exiting.
> If the accept() call fails for anything other than EAGAIN/EINTR then
> we arguably should exit, because something serious has gone wrong.
Doesn't accept() fail if the client fails to send the final ACK? Do we
want the daemon to die in that case? Think of an unprivileged user
connecting to the system daemon's readonly socket ... you really want to
be paranoid about the daemon exiting as it creates the opportunity for
unprivileged users to take down guests and networks.
Yes, accept will fail if the client doesn't complete the handshake. I already
(tried) to take care of that case though by not returning an error code if the
errno is EAGAIN
if ((fd = accept(sock->fd, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, &addrlen)) < 0) {
if (errno == EAGAIN)
return 0;
qemudLog(QEMUD_ERR, "Failed to accept connection: %s",
strerror(errno));
return -1;
}
Looking at the man page, i think I also need to check for ECONNABORTED
errno value too.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|