On 11/23/2010 11:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/22/2010 02:35 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@redhat.com> --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c index 11a6280..045934d 100644 --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c @@ -4569,7 +4569,7 @@ static virDomainDefPtr virDomainDefParseXML(virCapsPtr caps, def->maxvcpus = 1; } else { def->maxvcpus = count; - if (def->maxvcpus != count || count == 0) { + if (count == 0) {
At first glance, I was about to complain: Since def->maxvcpus is an unsigned short but count is an int, someone calling setvcpus 0x10001 will silently overflow and end up setting def->maxvcpus == 1. In other words, you just deleted the 'def->maxvcpus != count' overflow check...
virDomainReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, _("invalid maxvcpus %lu"), count); goto error; @@ -4585,11 +4585,18 @@ static virDomainDefPtr virDomainDefParseXML(virCapsPtr caps, def->vcpus = def->maxvcpus; } else { def->vcpus = count; - if (def->vcpus != count || count == 0 || def->maxvcpus < count) { + if (count == 0) { virDomainReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, _("invalid current vcpus %lu"), count); goto error; } + + if (def->maxvcpus < count) {
...but this new code is an equally effective overflow check. No complaint after all; def is local, so it doesn't matter if we changed def->maxvcpus to an invalid value before detecting overflow. Thanks for cleaning this up for me.
Ahh, I didn't realize that check was for overflow, I thought it was unintentional redundancy :/ Glad it worked out okay in the end! Thanks, Cole