On 5/15/19 11:49 AM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:
On 5/14/19 5:24 PM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:04 PM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote:
On 5/14/19 12:50 PM, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:40 PM John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> wrote:
On 5/13/19 9:04 AM, Ilias Stamatis wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:38 PM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/13/19 1:26 AM, Ilias Stamatis wrote: >>> Return the number of disks present in the configuration of the test >>> domain when called with @errors as NULL and @maxerrors as 0. >>> >>> Otherwise report an error for every second disk, assigning available >>> error codes in a cyclic order. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <stamatis.iliass@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> src/test/test_driver.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/src/test/test_driver.c b/src/test/test_driver.c >>> index a06d1fc402..527c2f5d3b 100644 >>> --- a/src/test/test_driver.c >>> +++ b/src/test/test_driver.c >>> @@ -3046,6 +3046,47 @@ static int testDomainSetAutostart(virDomainPtr domain, >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +static int testDomainGetDiskErrors(virDomainPtr dom, >>> + virDomainDiskErrorPtr errors, >>> + unsigned int maxerrors, >>> + unsigned int flags) >>> +{
[...]
>>> + n++; >>> + } >>> + ret = n; >>> + } >>> + >>> + cleanup: >>> + virDomainObjEndAPI(&vm); >>> + if (ret < 0) { >>> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) >>> + VIR_FREE(errors[i].disk); >>> + }
The above got changed to :
+ cleanup: + virDomainObjEndAPI(&vm); + if (ret < 0) { + for (i = 0; i < MIN(vm->def->ndisks, maxerrors); i++) + VIR_FREE(errors[i].disk); + }
I think this change is incorrect and a bug lies in here.
If VIR_STRDUP fails above, memory for less than MIN(vm->def->ndisks, maxerrors) will have been allocated, and then in the cleanup code we'll call VIR_FREE with pointers that haven't been previously allocated.
That isn't a problem. User has to passed an array that we can touch. If they store some data in it, well, their fault - how are we supposed to return anything if we can't touch the array?
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
We can touch the array of course.
What I'm saying is that we allocate memory with VIR_STRDUP for each errors[i].disk, but if the call fails we free this memory on our own.
However how it is implemented now we might call VIR_FREE on pointers for which we have *not* allocated any memory.
Because in the first loop, VIR_STRDUP might fail and send us to "cleanup". But then on cleanup we iterate over the whole errors array.
Isn't this incorrect? Do I understand something wrong?
Ah, now I get it. If user passes an array that is not zeroed out then we might end up passing a random pointer to free(). How about this then?
if (ret < 0) { while (i > 0) VIR_FREE(errors[i--].disk); }
Yes, this would work I think. And then the other changes in the cleanup etc are not needed.
Ie it can be again:
if (!(vm = testDomObjFromDomain(dom))) goto cleanup;
instead of "return -1" which is more consistent with the rest of the code.
This is done in 1/2. Or what do you mean?
However the code now returns errors for all disks. I thought we wanted to report errors only for some of them?
Doesn't matter really. Michal