Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] cpu_ppc64: Error out when model tag missing in virsh cpu-compare xml
On 09/18/2017 12:57 PM, Nitesh Konkar wrote:
libvirtd throws unhandled signal 11 on ppc while running
virsh cpu-compare with missing model tag in the xml. This
patch errors out in such situation.
You could provide the example XML snippet ... and as noted below what
the "expectations" are...
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Konkar <nitkon12(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
src/cpu/cpu_ppc64.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
I assume since you didn't provide a stack trace, the caller is either
has "cpu->type == VIR_CPU_TYPE_GUEST && cpu->mode ==
VIR_CPU_MODE_CUSTOM" or "cpu->type != VIR_CPU_TYPE_GUEST", right?
It's
not the host_model failure.
If so, then the commit message should indicate that "it's expected" that
for specific comparison types that the model was filled in
In the end - just want to make sure that the symptom being fixed isn't
masking a problem of insufficient checking on XML parse for specific types
diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu_ppc64.c b/src/cpu/cpu_ppc64.c
index b58e80a..c11ac9f 100644
--- a/src/cpu/cpu_ppc64.c
+++ b/src/cpu/cpu_ppc64.c
@@ -247,6 +247,12 @@ ppc64ModelFromCPU(const virCPUDef *cpu,
{
struct ppc64_model *model;
+ if (!cpu->model) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG, "%s",
+ _("no guest CPU model specified"));
or "CPU model not specified"...
The "concern" being that this code is used for multiple purposes
(host_model, cpu->type == GUEST && cpu->model == CUSTOM, and cpu->type
!= GUEST) - so using "guest" could be a misnomer.
John
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
if (!(model = ppc64ModelFind(map, cpu->model))) {
virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
_("Unknown CPU model %s"), cpu->model);