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(a)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).