On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 18:28:59 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
This function can be called with a virDomainDevicePtr and whether or not the removal was successful, and it will call the appropriate virDomainAudit*() function with the appropriate args for whatever type of device it's given (or do nothing, if that's appropriate). This permits generalizing some code that currently has a separate copy for each type of device.
Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org> --- src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c index b0e2c738b9..5e5ffe16d3 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_hotplug.c @@ -5208,6 +5208,78 @@ qemuDomainRemoveRedirdevDevice(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, }
+static inline void
Don't use inline, it's pointless.
+qemuDomainRemoveAuditDevice(virDomainObjPtr vm, + virDomainDeviceDefPtr detach, + bool success)
@success is always false in the one call place the other patches add. Especially I doubt it will ever be different. All async device deletion callbacks do their own per-device-type audit call on success. This function is unused thus breaks build.
+{ + switch ((virDomainDeviceType)detach->type) { + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_CHR: + virDomainAuditChardev(vm, detach->data.chr, NULL, "detach", success); + break; + + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_DISK: + virDomainAuditDisk(vm, detach->data.disk->src, NULL, "detach", success); + break; + + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_NET: + virDomainAuditNet(vm, detach->data.net, NULL, "detach", success); + break; + + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_HOSTDEV: + virDomainAuditHostdev(vm, detach->data.hostdev, "detach", success); + break; + + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_RNG: + virDomainAuditRNG(vm, detach->data.rng, NULL, "detach", success); + break; + + case VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MEMORY: { + unsigned long long oldmem = virDomainDefGetMemoryTotal(vm->def); + unsigned long long newmem = oldmem - detach->data.memory->size; + + virDomainAuditMemory(vm, oldmem, newmem, "update", success);
This is currently not audited, I think it should be added separately.