On 06/13/2017 03:41 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 06/13/2017 07:31 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 06/13/2017 12:45 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 06/05/2017 04:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Our documentation to all four virStreamRecvAll, virStreamSendAll,
s/all four/the/
virStreamSparseRecvAll, virStreamSparseSendAll says that if these
s/RecvAll, virStream/RecvAll, and virStream/
s/says that if these functions fail,/functions indicates that on failure/
functions fail, virStreamAbort() is called. But that is not necessarily true. For instance all of these functions allocate a buffer to work with. If the allocation fails, no virStreamAbort() is called despite -1 being returned. It's the same story with argument sanity checks and a lot of other checks.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> --- src/libvirt-stream.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
This patch particularly scares me because there are so many more paths that could now call virStreamAbort. Yes, I know that's the point
Exactly :-)
, but nonetheless it's large leap of faith to only calling Abort as a result of some Send/Recv callback failure to calling Abort for the ancillary stuff surrounding or supporting those calls as well.
Why is that? The documentation to this function says that if this function fails, virStreamAbort has been called. So in fact currently this function might fail without calling virStreamAbort.
I understand/agree - it's still a large leap of faith though! It's always the nagging proposition of why was the code originally done the way it was where abort only happens in specific cases. Trying to peer back through the space and time continuum at commit id '182eba1b' and consider if there was a specific reason the "other" paths that could return -1 didn't call virStreamAbort? Why was it *only* the (handler) paths.
Well. it's 2009. The code looked very differently then. Or maybe it jsut slipped review.
Beyond the setting for the NONBLOCK and VIR_ALLOC_N failures, was the the expectation that somewhere in the virStreamSend/virStreamRecv calls that virStreamAbort would have been called on failure. Both note that the stream will be marked as aborted.
Another "irony" is that the comment code example for virStreamSend shows the need to call virStreamAbort after a virStreamSend failure, but the same is not true for virStreamRecv failure example.
Ah, I haven't realized that! Sure. this definitely needs to be fixed too. In fact, it belongs to this patch IMO - since it's fixing the very same issue. Michal