On 10/02/2013 03:34 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
So far the virNetDevBandwidthEqual() expected both ->in and ->out items to be allocated for both @a and @b compared. This is not necessary true for all our code. For instance, running 'update-device' twice over a NIC with the very same XML results in SIGSEGV-ing in this function.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/util/virnetdevbandwidth.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/util/virnetdevbandwidth.c b/src/util/virnetdevbandwidth.c index 42b0a50..17f4fa3 100644 --- a/src/util/virnetdevbandwidth.c +++ b/src/util/virnetdevbandwidth.c @@ -335,16 +335,30 @@ virNetDevBandwidthEqual(virNetDevBandwidthPtr a, return false;
/* in */ - if (a->in->average != b->in->average || - a->in->peak != b->in->peak || - a->in->burst != b->in->burst) + if (a->in) { + if (!b->in) + return false; + + if (a->in->average != b->in->average || + a->in->peak != b->in->peak || + a->in->burst != b->in->burst) + return false; + } else if (b->in) { return false; + }
/*out*/ - if (a->out->average != b->out->average || - a->out->peak != b->out->peak || - a->out->burst != b->out->burst) + if (a->out) { + if (!b->out) + return false; + + if (a->out->average != b->out->average || + a->out->peak != b->out->peak || + a->out->burst != b->out->burst) + return false; + } else if (b->out) { return false; + }
return true; }
ACK. Could this lead to a segv prior to applying the previous patch? Or does it only become a problem once you support bandwidth change in qemuChangeNet? In either case, I think this patch should be pushed upstream *before* patch 1/2, so that we don't create a window in the history where a new segv is introduced (just in case someone is doing a bisect and hits on that particular revision).